The distortion of science

Absolutely incorrect and the sun IS almost perfectly spherical!

Let's put your word to the test.
[<< R E A D my post again. If you can't understand it go back to school! >>

Had you bothered to read it you might have noted that the angular velocity of the sun is very low and hence centripetal acceleration is far less than gravity on the surface.

Totally incorrect

In 1894, Einstein leaves Luitpold Gymnasium without a degree.

https://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/chronological_table.html

In fact, he dropped out of the Gymnasium.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=6UV0wMmnrIUC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=einstein+luitpold+gymnasium+dropped+out&source=bl&ots=D3IMe4bghv&sig=j7Wlxo7JZZuL4E1rSUi08iKRt44&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRwaLFkePeAhUrLcAKHRvXB9oQ6AEwF3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=einstein%20luitpold%20gymnasium%20dropped%20out&f=false

In 1895 he fails the entrance exam to the Polytechnic University.

This is happening in October 1895.

Yet, we are to believe that in October 1896, he passes all of his classes with a mark of 6.

Sorry, it doesn't work out like that.

It could be that the REAL notes he received at Luitpold (where 6 is rock bottom) were switched over to the certificate from Aarau.

We know for sure that Paul Biefeld did Einstein's homework while both were attending the same university:

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html

“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."

Einstein could not have gotten it more wrong.

The entire Universe defies his theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.

Regardless of all what you say the scientific world, you are so fond of misquoting and distorting, all hail Einstein and his achievements to be among the greatest of all time....  and that is a fact,......not one of you many made up factoids.

My challenge to Sandokhan is to explain all these contradictions, in plain English. Your attempt to baffle people by copying pages of cut and paste equations is not how to debate a point, all it does is allow you to hide behind a smokescreen of numbers.



http://www.space-lab.ru/files/pages/PIRT_VII-XII/pages/text/PIRT_X/Sfarti_2.pdf

You simply do not understand what it means to do your homework.

Take a look at the date this following message was posted:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846045#msg1846045

DECEMBER 09, 2016

There have been several attempts to try to explain the Sagnac effect, either using STR, GTR or other field theories.

J.H. Field (STR, time dilation), R. Klauber (NTO, non-time orthogonal metric in spacetime), A. Tartaglia/M.L. Ruggiero/G. Rizzi (flat spacetime, Aharonov-Bohm effect), P. Maraner/J.P. Zendri (Minkowski spacetime, Aharonov-Bohm effect), S.J.G. Gift (GTR), M.F. Yagan (cumulative Doppler effect using STR), A.G. Kelly (universal relativity), A. Sfarti (STR), F. Amador (Evans field theory), F. Selleri (specific set of spacetime transformations which lead directly to MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).

These authors do not seem to understand that there is no such thing as the theory of relativity/spacetime continuum:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750


https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/tsc/gallery_sidebar-sun.jpg

DISCOIDAL SHAPE OF THE SUN.

It cannot be spherical.

Had you bothered to read it you might have noted that the angular velocity of the sun is very low and hence centripetal acceleration is far less than gravity on the surface.

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

YOU CANNOT INVOKE GRAVITY WHEN THE PRESSURE IN THE CHROMOSPHERE IS 0.0000000000001 BAR.



PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10^-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr²a²ρ²_ce^-x2/3M

where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρ_c)^1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg
central density = 1.62 x 10⁵ kg/m³

G = gr²/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)³(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10^-9 kg/m² value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s²


RATIO


a_c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:






"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."



Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


all hail Einstein and his achievements to be among the greatest of all time

Einstein could not have gotten it more wrong.

The entire Universe defies his theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.

Let’s make it quite clear to all the readers of this discussion.

ALL THE PHYSICISTS QUOTED BY SANDOKHAN WHO HAVE deigned! EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT designed!.. THOSED EXPERIMENTS BASED ON THE WORLD BEING BOTH SPHERICAL AND ROTATING.

NONE OF THE PHYICISTS SANDOKHAN IS FOUND OF QUOTING WERE BELIVERS IN A FLAT STATIONARY EARTH.

IF QUESTIONED I AM SURE NONE OF THE SCIENTISTS HE QUOTES WOULD AGREE WITH HIM ON HIS BELIEFS ABOUT THE SUN AND COSMOS.

My challenge to Sandokhan is to explain all these contradictions, in plain English. Your attempt to baffle people by copying pages of cut and paste equations is not how to debate a point, all it does is allow you to hide behind a smokescreen of numbers.



http://www.space-lab.ru/files/pages/PIRT_VII-XII/pages/text/PIRT_X/Sfarti_2.pdf

You simply do not understand what it means to do your homework.

Take a look at the date this following message was posted:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846045#msg1846045

DECEMBER 09, 2016

There have been several attempts to try to explain the Sagnac effect, either using STR, GTR or other field theories.

J.H. Field (STR, time dilation), R. Klauber (NTO, non-time orthogonal metric in spacetime), A. Tartaglia/M.L. Ruggiero/G. Rizzi (flat spacetime, Aharonov-Bohm effect), P. Maraner/J.P. Zendri (Minkowski spacetime, Aharonov-Bohm effect), S.J.G. Gift (GTR), M.F. Yagan (cumulative Doppler effect using STR), A.G. Kelly (universal relativity), A. Sfarti (STR), F. Amador (Evans field theory), F. Selleri (specific set of spacetime transformations which lead directly to MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).

These authors do not seem to understand that there is no such thing as the theory of relativity/spacetime continuum:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750


https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/tsc/gallery_sidebar-sun.jpg

DISCOIDAL SHAPE OF THE SUN.

It cannot be spherical.

Had you bothered to read it you might have noted that the angular velocity of the sun is very low and hence centripetal acceleration is far less than gravity on the surface.

Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

YOU CANNOT INVOKE GRAVITY WHEN THE PRESSURE IN THE CHROMOSPHERE IS 0.0000000000001 BAR.



PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10^-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr²a²ρ²_ce^-x2/3M

where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρ_c)^1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg
central density = 1.62 x 10⁵ kg/m³

G = gr²/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)³(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10^-9 kg/m² value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s²


RATIO


a_c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:






"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."



Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


all hail Einstein and his achievements to be among the greatest of all time

Einstein could not have gotten it more wrong.

The entire Universe defies his theory of relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

Dark flow has been described as taking a hammer and beating the living tar out of Einstein’s gravitational theory of the universe.

So irrational, why not deal with one point at a time. While you are at it please explain in plain English your contradictions.

ALL THE PHYSICISTS QUOTED BY SANDOKHAN WHO HAVE DESIGNES EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT DESINED THOSED EXPERIMENTS BASED ON THE WORLD BEING BOTH SPHERICAL AND ROTATING.

Brilliant.

However, Michelson and Gale only detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift upon the light beams of the interferometer.

The Sagnac effect is some 21,000 times greater than the Coriolis effect.

No rotation of the Earth.

Only a rotating ether drift above the interferometer.

Can't be both.

Yes it can.
Both the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect are simply apparently strange things happening in a non-inertial reference frames.

And yet again, you just repeat the same refuted BS.
How long will it take before you learn that repeating the same BS and ignoring what has been said doesn't magically make you correct, and instead shows you have no argument.

As 6 questions at once seems too much for you, lets try it simpler, 1 question at a time:
Using your picture:

I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l₁ and travelling at a velocity of v₁ (in the direction of rotation of Earth), and likewise for arm 3 with l₃ and v₃:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?

The CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT are not the same thing: they require quite different formulas to be described.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect upon the light beams.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the light beams.

A marked and huge difference.

Here is the proof that the formula derived by Michelson is actually the Coriolis effect formula:

Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA derived by Michelson:

dt = l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) - (l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂))

Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:

2v₁l₁/(c² - v²₁) - 2v₂l₂/(c² - v²₂)

l = l₁ = l₂

2l[(v₁ - v₂)]/c²

2lΩ[(R₁ - R₂)]/c²

R₁ - R₂ = h

2lhΩ/c²

By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


Can you understand this much?

You have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here are the papers to prove it.

Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory

Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921

Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.

He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.

He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.


You can't have it both ways.

What you derived, as proven in these papers, is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?

Same as it ever was.

This is what Michelson put forth in front of his readers.

dt = l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) - (l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂))

l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) = 2l₁v₁/c²

l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂) = 2l₂v₂/c²

The phase differences have already been obtained.


Now, if you substract, you are going to get the Coriolis effect.

Been there, done that.


If you want to obtain the Sagnac effect, you must add the components.

Just like Professor Yeh did.

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc = 4π(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c² = 2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²


CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²


Now, we can do it differently, that is, we add first and then we substract.

This way is even more revealing.

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:

Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction, while the interferometer is being rotated.

For each arm of the interferometer we ADD the componets which are in the same direction, two of each.

THEN WE SUBSTRACT THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.

Very simple to follow.

Here is how the phase components work out.

Now, let carefully analyze this equation.

We have the following terms, both have the same direction:

l₁/(c - v₁)

l₂/(c - v₂)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:

l₁/(c + v₁)

l₂/(c + v₂)

To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.

This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.

l₁/(c - v₁) + l₂/(c - v₂) = (l₁c - l₁v₂ + l₂c - l₂v₁)/(c² - cv₁ - cv₂ + v₁v₂)

l₁/(c + v₁) + l₂/(c + v₂) = (l₁c + l₁v₂ + l₂c + l₂v₁)/(c² + cv₁ + cv₂ + v₁v₂)

Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l₁ + l₂)/(c - v₁ - v₂) and (l₁ + l₂)/(c + v₁ + v₂) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:

(l₁c - l₁v₂ + l₂c - l₂v₁)/(c² - cv₁ - cv₂ + v₁v₂) - (l₁c + l₁v₂ + l₂c + l₂v₁)/(c² + cv₁ + cv₂ + v₁v₂) = 2[(l₁v₁ + l₂v₂)]/c²


Either way, we obtain the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA, derived experimentally by Professor Yeh:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

[repeated BS removed]

Still no answer to these very simple questions.
I ask again:

Using your picture:

I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l₁ and travelling at a velocity of v₁ (in the direction of rotation of Earth), and likewise for arm 3 with l₃ and v₃:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?

The CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT are not the same thing: they require quite different formulas to be described.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect upon the light beams. The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect upon the light beams.

A marked and huge difference.

Yes, there surely is a "marked and huge difference". Dr. Ludwik Silberstein quite convincingly shows that for EM waves the Coriolis effect is too small to be even measured.

Here is the proof that the formula derived by Michelson is actually the Coriolis effect formula:

Here is the CORIOLIS SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA derived by Michelson:

FIFY

dt = l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) - (l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂))

Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:
2v₁l₁/(c² - v²₁) - 2v₂l₂/(c² - v²₂)
l = l₁ = l₂
2l[(v₁ - v₂)]/c²
2lΩ[(R₁ - R₂)]/c²
R₁ - R₂ = h
2lhΩ/c²
By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
Can you understand this much?

You have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here are the papers to prove it.

Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:

And don't forget the "Verification of the special relativity theory" part of it.

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams: Verification of the special relativity theory by SANKAR HAJRA

But I have to ask, Why would you take SANKAR HAJRA as an authority it being the Coriolis Effect and not the Sagnac Effect above the authority of say Albert Michelson and Dr. Ludwik Silberstein?
Especially when SANKAR HAJRA ends with this big if:

5. Measurement and conclusion
(a) If the relativity principle is correct and the experiment is carried out ideally, there will be a minute blackening of the photographic plate centring the point O₂.

(b) If our present analysis is correct, there will be blackening of the photographic plate from the point T₂ (of the bottom side mirror) westward in the second observation and there will be blackening of the photographic plate from the point T₄ (of the bottom side mirror) westward in the third observation. All the distances viz., O₂-T₂ and O₂ T₄ could be measured and shown to be 2lu/c and 2lv/c respectively.

I think that I'll go with Albert Michelson and call it the Sagnac Delay!

You might note that Dr. Ludwik Silberstein never says that he has derived the "CORIOLIS FORCE" only the Sagnac Delay!

Dr Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.

No, Dr. Silberstein did not propose that the Sagnac effect must be explained by "the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves".

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921

Had you read his paper properly your would have noted that he simply showed that the Coriolis effect caused the light rays to deviate very slightly from straight paths between the mirrors.

For the Earth (and a triangle parallel to the equatorial plane) even if κ = 1 (no drag) this would amount to 0.''00052 per kilometer of a,
and the difference between the angle sum of ACBA and ABCA would be the double of this. Thus, even for a = 10 or 20 km the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly.

In other words, rather than the "the Sagnac effect, . . . . , must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect" the Coriolis effect "would certainly be too small to be measured directly."

Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

No, he did not "prove that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is" but he "proves that the formula for the Sagnac effect on the light beams is" . . . .
Please read what te paper actually says not what you want it to say!

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

And shows that the effect of this "convex and concave shape of the areas: σ₁ and σ₂" ""would certainly be too small to be measured directly."

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2; A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.

No, no, no! Dr Ludwik Silberstein derived the Sagnac delay and he was quite unambiguous about this!

And on page 12 of 17 Dr Ludwik Silberstein derives the Sagnac delay using both Einstein's SR and GR:

2. Let us now try to find out what aspect the same problem
assumes from the standpoint of the theory of relativity, the special
and the generalized one.
It goes without saying that with neither of these theories can there be any question of an aether and its being dragged by the Earth in its daily rotation around its axis, or in its annual motion around the SUN.

And you will find your very learned Dr Ludwik Silberstein treats all of aether drag, SR and GR as possibilities worth testing further which, to some extent the Michelson-Gale-Pearon experiment did..

You can't have it both ways.

What you derived, as proven in these papers, is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

No it is NOT and so it is having NOT TWO WAYS! It is not the Coriolis Effect, it is the Sagnac Effect.

<< The rest I think we can ignore >>

In closing I do wish you would carefully read your own references. I don't know why you would use a reference like that of Dr Ludwik Silberstein.
It quite clearly disproves all you are claiming and obviously strongly supports the rotating earth orbiting the sun!

Dis thread tho

The derivation of the Coriolis effect for light beams is undergraduate level.

Very easy to do.

Two papers which prove that the formula derived by Michelson is the Coriolis effect equation:

Full derivation of the above formula using the CORIOLIS FORCE:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory

Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the same formula in 1921:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2068289#msg2068289

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921


ONLY someone who should not be allowed to post in the upper forums, could write something like this:

In other words, rather than the "the Sagnac effect, . . . . , must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect" the Coriolis effect "would certainly be too small to be measured directly."

The quote you provided, pg 298 of the paper, has nothing to do with the Sagnac or the Coriolis effect.

Dr. Silberstein is deriving the equation of the light path in relation to Fermat's principle.

Did you even read the paper?

How then could make such a catastrophic blunder?

He starts the derivation of the Coriolis effect on page 298 at the bottom.

The fact that you CONFUSED and MIXED UP two different situations tells volumes about your miserable training as physicist.


No, Dr. Silberstein did not propose that the Sagnac effect must be explained by "the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves".

But he did.

In fact, in three papers.

Remember, the CORIOLIS EFFECT is a physical effect.

It relates directly to the area of the interferometer.

In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645

In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503



Dr. Silberstein reveals the error committed by M. von Laue in the paper published in 1911:

"Laue seems, by the way, to be under the misapprehension that the light rays relative to the rotating table are straight lines, which they are not."

Dr. Silberstein proved that the effect measured by Sagnac is A PHYSICAL EFFECT, a deflection/inflection of the light beams due to the CORIOLIS FORCE.


Dr. Silberstein is describing the Coriolis effect, whether the lines are straight or not, NOT the electromagnetic effect (the Sagnac effect).

HERE IS THE PROOF THAT DR. SILBERSTEIN DERIVED THE CORIOLIS EFFECT:

One of the most in-depth treaties on the ring laser interferometers.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=8c_mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=malykin+silberstein+coriolis&source=bl&ots=JrMqF2vmto&sig=xCnMB4hL_J_ESg9Xdfhye1ahVjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0ZDWxeXeAhXwkYsKHYxwBMYQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=malykin%20silberstein%20coriolis&f=false

CAN YOU READ ENGLISH RABINOZ?

Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.

Those two references, 798 and 799 are EXACTLY the ones I provided in my messages.


Make no mistake about it: Dr. Silberstein derives the Coriolis effect, which is directly related to the area of the interferometer.

Dr. Silberstein:

He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.

He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.

The fact that Dr. Silberstein deals also with TSR/TGR is outside the scope of our discussion: it is very easy to show the errors inherent in TSR/TGR.


Why would you take SANKAR HAJRA as an authority it being the Coriolis Effect and not the Sagnac Effect above the authority of say Albert Michelson and Dr. Ludwik Silberstein?


S. Hajra is using the STANDARD derivation of the Coriolis effect; as I said, undergraduate work, very simple.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308921264_Spinning_Earth_and_its_Coriolis_effect_on_the_circuital_light_beams_Verification_of_the_special_relativity_theory


You cannot have a single formula for two different effects.


Each effect has its own formula.


Here is the formula derived by Michelson:

dt = l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) - (l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂))

Of course, by proceeding as in the usual manner for a Sagnac phase shift formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, we obtain:

2v₁l₁/(c² - v²₁) - 2v₂l₂/(c² - v²₂)

l = l₁ = l₂

2l[(v₁ - v₂)]/c²

2lΩ[(R₁ - R₂)]/c²

R₁ - R₂ = h

2lhΩ/c²

By having substracted two different Sagnac phase shifts, valid for the two different segments, we obtain the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


Exactly the same formula derived both by Hajra and Silberstein (who used areas to build up/derive the formula).

It is a physical effect.


Here is the formula derived by Professor Yeh, which was peer reviewed, and is currently used by the US OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc = 4π(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c² = 2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²



Someone is wondering aloud:

Still no answer to these very simple questions.

You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here are not one, but two derivations of the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.

This is what Michelson put forth in front of his readers.

dt = l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) - (l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂))

l₁/(c - v₁) - l₁/(c + v₁) = 2l₁v₁/c²

l₂/(c - v₂) - l₂/(c + v₂) = 2l₂v₂/c²

The phase differences have already been obtained.


Now, if you substract, you are going to get the Coriolis effect.

Been there, done that.


If you want to obtain the Sagnac effect, you must add the components.

Just like Professor Yeh did.

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc = 4π(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c² = 2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²


CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²


Now, we can do it differently, that is, we add first and then we substract.

This way is even more revealing.

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:

Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction, while the interferometer is being rotated.

For each arm of the interferometer we ADD the componets which are in the same direction, two of each.

THEN WE SUBSTRACT THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.

Very simple to follow.

Here is how the phase components work out.

Now, let carefully analyze this equation.

We have the following terms, both have the same direction:

l₁/(c - v₁)

l₂/(c - v₂)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:

l₁/(c + v₁)

l₂/(c + v₂)

To obtain the Sagnac effect, we must ADD the terms in the SAME DIRECTION, and substract the final difference.

This is what the Sagnac effect actually entails: BEAMS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION, A ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER, AND THE FINAL MEASUREMENT OF THE PHASE DIFFERENCE.

l₁/(c - v₁) + l₂/(c - v₂) = (l₁c - l₁v₂ + l₂c - l₂v₁)/(c² - cv₁ - cv₂ + v₁v₂)

l₁/(c + v₁) + l₂/(c + v₂) = (l₁c + l₁v₂ + l₂c + l₂v₁)/(c² + cv₁ + cv₂ + v₁v₂)

Since we have already added the correct Sagnac terms (both sets located in opposite directions), corresponding to the (l₁ + l₂)/(c - v₁ - v₂) and (l₁ + l₂)/(c + v₁ + v₂) terms, now the final phase difference can be correctly derived:

(l₁c - l₁v₂ + l₂c - l₂v₁)/(c² - cv₁ - cv₂ + v₁v₂) - (l₁c + l₁v₂ + l₂c + l₂v₁)/(c² + cv₁ + cv₂ + v₁v₂) = 2[(l₁v₁ + l₂v₂)]/c²


Either way, we obtain the CORRECT SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA, derived experimentally by Professor Yeh:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²


Get it straight through your heads: there are TWO SEPARATE FORMULAS for two DIFFERENT EFFECTS.

You cannot have one formula for two very different physical phenomena.

ALL THE PHYSICISTS QUOTED BY SANDOKHAN WHO HAVE DESIGNES EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT DESINED THOSED EXPERIMENTS BASED ON THE WORLD BEING BOTH SPHERICAL AND ROTATING.

Brilliant.

However, Michelson and Gale only detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift upon the light beams of the interferometer.

The Sagnac effect is some 21,000 times greater than the Coriolis effect.

No rotation of the Earth.

Only a rotating ether drift above the interferometer.

Nonsense. Answer this question honestly.
Was George Sagnac a believer in the flat Earth?

ALL THE PHYSICISTS QUOTED BY SANDOKHAN WHO HAVE DESIGNES EXPERIMENTS RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT DESINED THOSED EXPERIMENTS BASED ON THE WORLD BEING BOTH SPHERICAL AND ROTATING.

Brilliant.

However, Michelson and Gale only detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift upon the light beams of the interferometer.

The Sagnac effect is some 21,000 times greater than the Coriolis effect.

No rotation of the Earth.

Only a rotating ether drift above the interferometer.

Brilliant, that’s pretty much correct , I am!.....That’s the first thing you have said I agree with.
Does it not worry that none of the scientists you quote would agree with you on the nature of the Sun,Earth or cosmos at large. As you are so fond of quoting Nobel prize winners, name one who advocates a flat earth, aether, small sun as you appear to believe in.

Very easy to do.

Yes, which makes it surprising that you are unable to answer simple questions on it.

Rather than answer these very simple questions which would lead us straight to the result you insist on posting pages and pages of garbage which get us no closer to the answer as it just repeats the same baseless assertions.

You cannot have one formula for two very different physical phenomena.

That's right, it is the one formula for one phenomenon which you seem to want to pretend is true.

So again:
Using your picture (now with some excess removed):

I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l₁ and travelling at a velocity of v₁ (in the direction of rotation of Earth), and likewise for arm 3 with l₃ and v₃:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?

Are you capable of providing an answer to this very simple question, so we can move on to the next one or are you only capable of repeating the same refuted BS to avoid having to admit to yet another failure?

Quote from: sandokhan on November 21, 2018, 05:15:05 AM

Very easy to do.

Yes, which makes it surprising that you are unable to answer simple questions on it.

Rather than answer these very simple questions which would lead us straight to the result you insist on posting pages and pages of garbage which get us no closer to the answer as it just repeats the same baseless assertions.

Quote from: sandokhan on November 21, 2018, 05:15:05 AM

You cannot have one formula for two very different physical phenomena.

That's right, it is the one formula for one phenomenon which you seem to want to pretend is true.

So again:
Using your picture (now with some excess removed):

I am assuming you consider the shift in arm 2 and arm 4 to be insignificant.
So taking arm 1 to have a length of l₁ and travelling at a velocity of v₁ (in the direction of rotation of Earth), and likewise for arm 3 with l₃ and v₃:
What is the time taken for the light beam indicated in brown for arm 1?

Are you capable of providing an answer to this very simple question, so we can move on to the next one or are you only capable of repeating the same refuted BS to avoid having to admit to yet another failure?

Wow...if ever I need some dead horses flogged, I know who to ask. Your tenaciousness knows no bounds. I imagine Sandokhan will have a made up formula for that. 

Wow...if ever I need some dead horses flogged, I know who to ask. Your tenaciousness knows no bounds. I imagine Sandokhan will have a made up formula for that. 

This has happened repeatedly, with me resorting to asking him very simple question he repeatedly refuses to answer before running away because he knows he can't defend his position.
I will keep flogging the dead horse until it chooses to leave. If I had the power to remove it, I would.

He does have an answer. It has already been provided above.
Of the 7 questions he effectively has the correct answers for 4 of them, provided here (he uses 1 and 2 instead of 1 and 3):

We have the following terms, both have the same direction:
l₁/(c - v₁)
l₂/(c - v₂)
Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction:
l₁/(c + v₁)
l₂/(c + v₂)

The first 2 correspond to those going with the motion, (the simple justification of why is that they are a bigger number).
As the brown beam goes with the rotation in arm 1, that means the answer to Q1 (brown in arm 1) is:
l₁/(c - v₁)
And as the blue beam goes with the rotation in arm 3, that means Q5 (blue in arm 3) is:
l₃/(c - v₃)
Then the other 2 go against the motion, as brown goes against the motion in arm 3, Q2 is:
l₃/(c + v₃)
And finally Q4 is:
l₁/(c + v₁)

Now a sane person would find the overall shift as the time taken for blue minus time taken for brown (or vice versa), i.e.:
(blue1+blue3)-(brown1+brown3), or alternatively (blue1-brown1)+(blue3-brown3).

For some reason he instead things it should be:
(blue1+brown3)-(blue3+brown1), which makes no sense at all.

I'm also fairly sure he knows he is spouting garbage or has no idea what he is talking about because any honest person that understands would answer those questions rather than repeating the same nonsense.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on November 20, 2018, 05:35:49 AM

Irrelevent.

Einstein FAILED mathematics and physics in high school.

He could not pass a basic engineering exam.

Someone else did his homework for him, while attending university.

Yet, you seem to trust this person when it comes to understanding the universe.

Here is what happens when you do that: a failure on A GRAND COSMIC SCALE.

DARK FLOW, the defiance of the general relativity on a cosmic scale:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995


Relativity has had a great impact on modern science and there is tremendous amount of supporting evidence

FAKE SPECIAL RELATIVITY TESTS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008

And there is considerable experimental evidence for Einstein's General Relativity too

TOTAL DEMOLITION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY: HOW EINSTEIN FAKED THE 1919/1922 SHIFT EXPERIMENTS AND HOW EINSTEIN FUDGED THE MERCURY PERIHELION EQUATION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750

By the way your might compare your Sagnac calculations with these General relativistic Sagnac formula revised, Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri

Their result is still the Coriolis effect formula:

4AΩ/c^2

You are embarrassing yourself beyond redemption.

Do you understand the significance of a power series expansion?

The main term is the Coriolis effect formula.

The next term is O(wr/c)².

Do you understand the meaning of the symbol O()?

The relativistic correction is MUCH SMALLER IN MAGNITUDE THAN THE MAIN TERM.

And please show us experimental verification of your claimed sun height of 12 to 20 km above the earth.

ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT THE SHAPE OF THE SUN CANNOT BE SPHERICAL AT ALL:

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win  the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."



Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win  Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.

Eugene N. Parker


It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

British physicist C. E. R. Bruce


It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.

Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti


Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.

Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker


The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.

Ralph E. Juergens




PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. candy o i need you sunday dress ruby rings candy o i need you so could you help me in purple hum, assorted cards razor lights, you bring and all to prove you're on the move and vanishing candy o i need you so candy o i need you so the edge of night distract yourself obstacles don't work homogenize, decentralize it's just a quirk different ways to see you through all the same in the end peculiar star that's who you are do you have to win  This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10^-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr²a²ρ²_ce^-x2/3M

where a = (3^1/2M/2^1/24πρ_c)^1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg
central density = 1.62 x 10⁵ kg/m³

G = gr²/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)³(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10^-9 kg/m² value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s²


RATIO


a_c/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:






And you are going to have to explain the radius of the sun paradox, the fact that the Sun has a distinct surface:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2090897#msg2090897 (part II)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2093726#msg2093726 (part III)

I’m afraid all you say is irrelevant, what he did when he was a younger man is of no consequence and in no way diminishes his achievements. He won a Nobel prize, which I suppose is pretty good and was he considered by his peers at the time to be amongst the greatest geniuses ever. I’m afraid what you think when compared what true men of science thought is meaningless  in comparison.

You argument or reasoning that somehow him failing an exam brings his achievements  into question is pretty weak and childish.

Why not start with all the experiments and day to day functionality that confirms his work. To deny them would be simply be akin to shoving your head in some sand while singing la la la..

I was wondering who would be the one to respond to this
without bothering to actually read it first.

I'm not surprised it was you.   

I was wondering who would be the one to respond to this
without bothering to actually read it first.

I was contemplating asking you why you were copying his posts, did the quote break and you tried responding to something, were you trying to achieve it in case he deleted it; but nope now I have my answer.

https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/tsc/gallery_sidebar-sun.jpg

DISCOIDAL SHAPE OF THE SUN.
It cannot be spherical.

Tough! The sun is spherical, end of story. Look at these videos of sun-spots showing the sun's rotation.The sun is an almost perfect sphere and it rotates.

Had you bothered to read it you might have noted that the angular velocity of the sun is very low and hence centripetal acceleration is far less than gravity on the surface.
Is this supposed to be a joke on your part?

No. At its equator, the solar rotation period is 24.47 days. Hence its angular velocity is given by ω = 2 x π/(24.47 x 86400) = 2.97 x 10^-06
and that is VERY slow!

Hence the centripetal acceleration is given by: A_cent = ω² x R_sun = 0.00615 m/s².
And if my sums are right the acceleration due to gravity at the sun's surface should be about 274.4 m/s².

So I would say that the centripetal acceleration at the sun's surface is extremely small compared to the sun's gravity, agreed?

YOU CANNOT INVOKE GRAVITY WHEN THE PRESSURE IN THE CHROMOSPHERE IS 0.0000000000001 BAR.

Yes I can and I do!
The pressure of 0.0000000000001 BAR in the Chromosphere no more relevant than the atmospheric pressure 440 km above the earth being 0.0000000000104 Bar - and it is!

Sandokhan exemplifies the whole topic of this discussion pretty well. Scientific distortion.
He continually quotes the work of scientists, none of whom would support a flat earth and his beliefs in regard to the sun or cosmos. I asked him how many Nobel prize winning physicists, as he loves to quote them, have been flat earth believers, so far he has not responded.
He picks experiments like the one performed by Sagnac, who was not a flat earth believer, and distorts the results for his own ends cherry picking as he goes.
While Sagnac’s experiment did indeed throw up some perplexing results they have now been explained away by a multitude of experimenters, as it’s a Relativity easy experiment to do with modern equipment.
The experiment did not disprove relativity nor did it confirm any belief pointing to the earth being flat.
He contradicts his whole ‘scientific’ approach by ignoring all the current scientific evidence relating to the sun.  He claims it’s not spherical!....time laps images show this rotation. It being gas means it’s rotation is not like a solid planet, the equator rotates at a different rate from the poles. There are also a number of probes orbiting the sun, though he would play the fake card on those, which is very unscientific.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Solar_System_probes

If you choose to use science, then use it and don’t abuse it.

Sandokhan exemplifies the whole topic of this discussion pretty well. Scientific distortion.
He continually quotes the work of scientists, none of whom would support a flat earth and his beliefs in regard to the sun or cosmos. I asked him how many Nobel prize winning physicists, as he loves to quote them, have been flat earth believers, so far he has not responded.
He picks experiments like the one performed by Sagnac, who was not a flat earth believer, and distorts the results for his own ends cherry picking as he goes.
While Sagnac’s experiment did indeed throw up some perplexing results they have now been explained away by a multitude of experimenters, as it’s a Relativity easy experiment to do with modern equipment.
The experiment did not disprove relativity nor did it confirm any belief pointing to the earth being flat.
He contradicts his whole ‘scientific’ approach by ignoring all the current scientific evidence relating to the sun.  He claims it’s not spherical!....time laps images show this rotation. It being gas means it’s rotation is not like a solid planet, the equator rotates at a different rate from the poles. There are also a number of probes orbiting the sun, though he would play the fake card on those, which is very unscientific.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Solar_System_probes

If you choose to use science, then use it and don’t abuse it.

An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :

odiupicku
17 hours ago
​@tim denham Give me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent scientist who lived in last 2 500 years or even christian theologian who ever lived (in last 2 000 years) on this earth who believed that the earth was flat!!! JUST ONE NAME, can you do that??? The earth is motionless and in the center of the universe, but the earth isn't flat for God sake, what is wrong with you people? How about this (simple challenge) : If the earth were flat, then the flat earth map SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY EASY to make. Many have tried already, and all of them terribly failed. How hard is to infer (correctly) why no one can draw functional flat earth map WITH ABSOLUTE EASINESS on the flat sheet of paper??? If the earth is flat and flat sheet of paper is also flat all you have to do (to deal with) is to scale down the real face of the earth, isn't that so??? So, why don't you try to draw functional flat earth map? Why??? I'll tell you why : because it is absolutely impossible, that's why! Bye!
-------------------------------
tim denham
10 hours ago
+odiupicku so u believe a bunch of liars and scriptures written by jesuits.  i dont.  no map from the 1800s is the same and u sir are obviously a shill that any higher minded person can see. tesla (if he ever existed ) robotham Carlisle. come on dude there 100s
----------------------------------------
odiupicku
29 minutes ago
Tesla? Give me a break, that's a brazen lie, i saw some fake Tesla's quotes that circulate around (on the net), but you have to be aware that these quotes are fake, this is one similar example : https://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/ The Early Church Fathers were all geocentrists, and none of them was flat-earther (despite the fact that the Bible is indeed a flat earth book, as well (not only geocentric)), check this out : FLAT EARTH BIBLE : http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/07/the-biblical-flat-earth-early-church.html
--------------------------------------------
Tim Denham wasn't able to sanely respond to my challenge :

SHALL WE EVER SEE ANYONE ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO THIS ARGUMENT?* :
The distances between the equator and the north pole cannot be the same for a globe and a flat earth. Just think of half a ball. To draw the distance between the top and the bottom of the half ball, you would have to draw along the curve of the ball. Now, if you flatten the half ball, you will get the same distance between the center of the circle and the outside edge. However, the size of the bottom of the half ball has to expand out to a larger circle. So, either your distance around the equator is wrong or your distance between the equator and the north pole is wrong or your flat earth model is wrong. Take your pick.

Since the known distance from the north/south pole to the equator is 10,000 km (5400 nm)...and since the known circumference of the earth is 40,000 km (21600 nm)...then it follows that the earth cannot be a flat disk since the radius of a disk of 40,000 km is 6369 km...not 10,000 km...So, the only way around this simple argument is providing any evidence to the contrary regarding the circumference of the equator or the distance from the poles to the equator or both. There are 90 degrees of distance from the equator to the North Pole. Each degree has 60 minutes, each minute = 1 nautical mile, therefore 60 x 90 = 5,400 nautical miles = *10 000 km.* Btw, what would be meaning of the word EQUATOR on the flat earth?

Now, if the earth were a flat disc (on which the distance from the NP to the Equator would be 10000 km, as it is the case in our reality), then the circumference of such a disc (at the equator) would be 62800 km, not 40000 km!!! This number (62800 km) is absolutely preposterous (and in every conceivable aspect beyond the wildest imagination of an utter lunatic), so that only a complete idiot would give any attention to such ludicrous fanciful value. So, since the KNOWN distance from the North Pole to the Equator is out of question, and since the KNOWN value for the circumference of the Equator is out of question, also, your flat earth dreams end up right here, once and for all.

If Sandokhan is able to respond sanely to my challenge then we should all become flat-earthers, if not, then he should recant his belief in his absurd religion (to be honest : not so absurd as a belief that the earth turns on it's axis, and that there is no medium through which light can propagate so that c+v could be equal to c-v which is not the case, as MGP experiment confirmed).

odiupicku
29 minutes ago
Tesla? Give me a break, that's a brazen lie, i saw some fake Tesla's quotes that circulate around (on the net), but you have to be aware that these quotes are fake,

Nikola Tesla was a strong supporter of the Heliocentric Solar System and modern cosmology and don't take any notice of fake quotes read what he wrote himself.
Hear is an earlier reply to YOU that you seem to have forgotten!

Quote from: cikljamas on November 16, 2018, 03:58:29 AM

And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood.

Sure, why not? It's exactly as that very smart cookie, Nikola Tesla, wrote:

Quote from: Nikola Tesla

NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But this is not all. The whole`solar system is urged towards the remote constellation Hercules at a speed which some estimate at some twenty miles per second and owing to this there should be similar annual changes in the flux of energy, which may reach the appalling figure of over one hundred billion foot pounds. All these varying and purely mechanical effects are rendered more complex through the inclination of the orbital planes and many other permanent or casual mass actions.

this is one similar example : https://strangenotions.com/did-the-church-teach-the-earth-was-flat/ The Early Church Fathers were all geocentrists, and none of them was flat-earther (despite the fact that the Bible is indeed a flat earth book, as well (not only geocentric)), check this out : FLAT EARTH BIBLE : http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/07/the-biblical-flat-earth-early-church.html

Sure they were all geocentrists, so what? That was over 400 years ago and a lot has changed since then - Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton to name a few causes of that change.

--------------------------------------------
Tim Denham wasn't able to sanely respond to my challenge :
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If Sandokhan is able to respond sanely to my challenge then we should all become flat-earthers, if not, then he should recant his belief in his absurd religion (to be honest : not so absurd as a belief that the earth turns on it's axis, and that there is no medium through which light can propagate so that c+v could be equal to c-v which is not the case, as MGP experiment confirmed).

But there is no luminiferous aether yet:

• Bradley's stellar aberrations indicates that the earth does orbit the sun and
  
  
• the MGPX (and numerous similar experiments and instruments since) show that the earth does indeed rotate.

I showed these in this post that you don't seem to have read yet!

Quote from: cikljamas on November 21, 2018, 06:35:51 AM

1. Relativity is a bullshit theory which doesn't worth the paper it's written on. Relativity is even stupider than a flat-earth theory. So much about that crap of a theory.

Really?
         Why we believe in Special Relativity: Experimental Support for Einstein’s Theory
         Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real

Quote from: cikljamas

2. As for stationary aether around the rotating earth, this hypothesis has been refuted with MMX experiment in combination with MGPX,  and other interferometry experiments...

Firstly it was refuted with Airy's failure experiment that had been conducted in 1871 by Sir George Airy : Water in telescope causes no change in aberration ==> deflection occurs in transit â sideways aether flow.

No, it hasn't. Please get this straight Airy's experiment was NOT a failure! It was a valid experiment that returned a NULL result and that is quite a different matter.

You might read:
          The wonderful world of Hammar’s experiment by A. Sfarti or at The Wonderful World of Hammar’s Experiment by A. Sfarti

Quote from: Wikipedia

Aether drag hypothesis
Problems of complete aether dragging
Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:

• The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.
  
  
• The Sagnac effect shows that two rays of light, emanated from the same light source in different directions on a rotating platform, require different times to come back to the light source. However, if the aether is completely dragged by the platform this effect should not occur at all.
  
  
• Oliver Lodge conducted experiments in the 1890s, seeking evidence that the propagation of light is influenced by being in the proximity of large rotating masses, and found no such influence.
  
  
• In the Hammar experiment, conducted by Gustaf Wilhelm Hammar in 1935, a common path interferometer was used. Massive lead blocks were installed on both sides of only one leg of the interferometer. This arrangement should cause different amounts of aether drag and therefore produce a positive result. However, the result was again negative.
  
  
• It is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. In stellar aberration the position of a star when viewed with a telescope swings each side of a central position by about 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of swing is the amount expected when considering the speed of earth's travel in its orbit. In 1871 Airy demonstrated that stellar aberration occurs even when a telescope is filled with water. It seems that if the aether drag hypothesis were true then stellar aberration would not occur because the light would be travelling in the aether which would be moving along with the telescope. Consider a bucket on a train about to enter a tunnel, and a drop of water drips from the tunnel entrance into the bucket at the very center. The drop will not hit the center at the bottom of the bucket. The bucket is analogous to the tube of a telescope, the drop is a photon and the train is the earth. If aether is dragged then the droplet would be traveling with the train when it is dropped and would hit the center of bucket at the bottom. The amount of stellar aberration, α, is given by:
          So:
  The speed at which the earth goes round the sun, v = 30 km/s, and the speed of light is c = 299,792,458 m/s which gives α = 20.5 seconds of arc every six months. This amount of aberration is observed and this contradicts the complete aether drag hypothesis.
  

The only interpretation consistent with all of the experiments taken together is that there can be no luminiferous aether (in the "old" sense of aether) leaving SR and GR as possible explanations.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 22, 2018, 04:25:44 AM

odiupicku
29 minutes ago
Tesla? Give me a break, that's a brazen lie, i saw some fake Tesla's quotes that circulate around (on the net), but you have to be aware that these quotes are fake,

Nikola Tesla was a strong supporter of the Heliocentric Solar System and modern cosmology and don't take any notice of fake quotes read what he wrote himself.

What is wrong with you? You should address these words to the guy with whom i was talking, not to me...are you still in hurry? Take your time, and read with due attention so to be able to figure out to whom are you talking to (at least), and then feel free to hurry up so that you can try to catch your elusive train to Yuma...O.K.? lol

1. Bradley's stellar aberrations indicates that the earth does orbit the sun and

2. the MGPX (and numerous similar experiments and instruments since) show that the earth does indeed rotate.

1. James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruder Boškovic (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Boscovich. Boškovic even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.

Of course, Airy's water-filled instrument did not deliver the desired proof of the Copernican paradigm. Agreeing with somewhat similar tests already performed by Hoek and Klinkerfusz, the experiment demonstrated exactly the opposite outcome of that which had to be confidently expected. Actually the most careful measurements gave the same angle of aberration for a telescope with water as for one filled with air.

Airy put water in the telescope to test Bradley's claim that the moving Earth
caused aberration; he saw no change in aberration angle with the water
added.  This was termed a ‘failure’, since Bradley’s theory of receiver motion
predicted a change with the index of refraction – n.

CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due
to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.

2. The relativistic expectation sanctioned by Einstein in 1924, was that the MGP experiment should detect a full fringe shift in order to
confirm General Relativity, whereas a null result would have been compatible with the notion of a partial aether drag. 

Note that the expectations regarding the null result had now been inverted with respect to the MM experiment, because the MGP experiment tested for rotation and not translation of the earth.  So argued Einstein.

In this context, the authors (Paulo N. Correa, M.Sc.,Ph.D. and Alexandra N. Correa, HBA) wonder why should rotation be measurable because of a Space-Time drag of inertial frames in rotation, and translation remain unmeasurable and unable to elicit the dragging of its own inertial frame, when translation is also a gravitational motion and there must be equivalence in principle between inertial and non-inertial frames?

After all, to be consistent with itself, as Aspden has pointed out, Relativity should have followed Mach's lead and proposed that one should not
be able to electromagnetically measure any speed of rotation with respect to Space.

Be that as it may, the question that awakens one's attention is - why should Relativity (GR), when predicting the outcome of the
MGP experiment, expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand, as a Special Theory (SR), it had based its axiomatic assumptions upon the null result of the MM experiment with regard to translation of the earth?

Back in 1924, the relativistic expectation, as proposed by Silberstein and sanctioned by Einstein, was indeed that the MGP experiment should detect a full fringe shift if it were to confirm Relativity, whereas a null result would have been compatible with the notion of a partial aether drag. 

The expectations regarding the null result had been inverted with respect to the MM experiment, because the MGP experiment tested for rotation and not translation of the earth - so argued Relativity.

The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments.  Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes, the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation.

Indeed, why should GR predict that rotation was optically measurable but not translation?

This question is all the more poignant as Ernst Mach, whose work was considered by Einstein himself to be the forerunner of Relativity, had suggested precisely this postulate on the basis of what he saw to be the impossibility of distinguishing whether the earth rotated or .was immobile and the stars alone circled the earth.

To be continued at your request (after i see reasonable answer to the questions above)...

An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :

I notice how you only talk about Earth being flat and that being rejected by science.

Can you find any prominent scientist that lived in the last 100 years that accepts Earth is stationary?
No.

to be honest : not so absurd as a belief that the earth turns on it's axis, and that there is no medium through which light can propagate

You mean no were near as rational as the fact that Earth turns on its axis and light's medium is the electromagnetic field?
And far more absurd than the simple belief that Earth is round but magically stationay.

so that c+v could be equal to c-v which is not the case, as MGP experiment confirmed

No it didn't. Again, the speed of light is constant in an inertial reference frame. The MGP experiment is a non-inertial reference frame. This has been explained to you repeatedly.
What did seem to imply that was MMX, but in reality it actually showed that (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2)=(c-v)/(1+c(-v)/c^2), i.e. 1=1.

proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!!

And that experiment was fundamentally flawed, requiring water to drag the light to slow it down, but not drag it to change its direction in the frame of the aether. It literally makes no sense.

there must be equivalence in principle between inertial and non-inertial frames

No there mustn't.
The fact that one is inertial and one is not means there is no equivalence.

What there is equivalence between is gravitational attraction towards a body and that body accelerating towards you.
This is the same as the equivalence between a centrifugal force, and the object causing that force rotating.

After all, to be consistent with itself, [appeal to authority] Relativity should have [appeal to authority] proposed that one should not
be able to electromagnetically measure any speed of rotation with respect to Space.

Why?
The point of relativity was that the speed of light is constant in an inertial reference frame. There is no requirement for that to also hold in non-inertial reference frames.

why should Relativity [snip] expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand [snip] null result [snip] with regard to translation of the earth?

That has already been explained repeatedly.
One is based upon translation, an inertial motion. The other is based upon rotation, or translation of the apparatus with respect to itself, and thus is not an inertial motion.
These kinds of motions are different.

What you are suggesting as akin to suggesting why throwing a ball in a moving train produces a null result but throwing it on a merry go round produces a shift. It is because one is inertial one is not.

There is no justification to just assert they are the same.

than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. [snip] that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe

Stop lying. There was no small persistent positive shift. Firstly -0.04 is negative. I assume you have included it so you can skim over the fact that the fringe shift gets smaller and smaller as instruments were improved?
No fringe shift was detected within experimental uncertainty. Saying there was a persistent shift observed is an outright lie.

Stop ignoring the fact that all of this has already been addressed.
You repeating the same refuted BS doesn't make it true.

I’m really not sure what some of the previous posts were about. The thread is supposed to be discussing the distortion of science!

I’m really not sure what some of the previous posts were about. The thread is supposed to be discussing the distortion of science!

It was about how clikljamas horribly distorts science to pretend there is an aether.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 22, 2018, 04:25:44 AM

An excerpt from one recent conversation between one funny flat-earther and me :

I notice how you only talk about Earth being flat and that being rejected by science.

Can you find any prominent scientist that lived in the last 100 years that accepts Earth is stationary?
No.

H. Thirring in 1918 and 1922 suggested that Einstein's theory of gravitation or GR should  be  taken  to  indicate  that  the  spontaneous  orientation  of  gyroscopes  and  the phenomenon of atmospheric wind could be treated as if the earth were stationary (not rotating) and 'the distant stars' were moving around it at a speed high enough (>>c) to generate strong gravitational effects (fictional centrifugal and Coriolis forces).

"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. - Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345.

"[W]e have[...] certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth." - Galileo Galilei in letter to Francesco Rinuccini, March 29th, 1641

"[Redshifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[...] This hypothesis cannot be disproved" - Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology

"[A]ll this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe[...] We [reject] it only on grounds of modesty" - Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time

"If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! [This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations" - Paul Davies in Nature

"I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it[...] A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis in Scientific American

"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect" - Lawrence Krauss, 2006

"[Without Dark Energy, Earth must be] literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual" - Lawrence Krauss, 2009

"I don't think [CMB maps] don't point toward a geocentric universe" - Max Tegmarck, 2011

"[R]ed shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

"Earth is indeed the center of the universe." - Y.P. Varshni in Astrophysics and Space Science

"If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it" - Joseph Silk in The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of the Universe

"The uniform distribution of [gamma-ray] burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center" - Jonathan Katz in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe

"To date, there has been no general way of determining [that] we live at a typical position in the Universe" - Chris Clarkson et al. in Physical Review Letters in 2008

Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as geocentric theory are the "conspiracy theories" Geocentrism is the only proven fact of science, yet scientific community runs from it like the plague because it cuts through their worldview.. . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call geocentrists "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.

Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.

What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.

Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.

When De revolutionibus by Copernicus (1473-1543) was published in May of 1543, it used a text of the protestant theologian Andreas Osiander as an introduction, in which he explained that heliocentrism was a proposal of an astronomical model to facilitate the calculations of celestial motions, but he did not want to draw any realistic conclusions in the field of natural philosophy. In Bellarmine’s letter, the distinction is clear between the astronomer-mathematician who does calculations on one side and, on the other side, the natural philospher who qualitatively describes the real in light of a theologically inspired metaphysics:

«For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the Earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all of the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false.».

BELLARMINE TO FOSCARINI (GALILEO) : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1931338#msg1931338

Galileo recanted his heliocentric belief :

[Irrelevant distortion of science pruned]

Notice how none of them actually indicate Earth is stationary? Instead the closest you get is a quote mine which indicate that you can't tell the difference between Earth being stationary and the entire universe moving around it vs Earth moving?

And you don't even provide full references for them. You are just copying and pasting crap from elsewhere.

And then you blatantly lie about it. None of that indicates the universe is geocentric, so not, that is no the only proven fact of science, it is not proven at all.

Quote from: rabinoz on November 22, 2018, 05:00:21 AM

1. Bradley's stellar aberrations indicates that the earth does orbit the sun and

2. the MGPX (and numerous similar experiments and instruments since) show that the earth does indeed rotate.

1. James Bradley was the guy to whom my countryman Ruder Boškovic (forgotten croatian genius) - during his visitation to London - proposed to conduct a decisive experiment in order to determine if the earth orbits the sun!!! Almost 100 years later (In 1871) G. B. Airy (1802-1892) implemented the verification of Bradley's aberration hypothesis proposed by Boscovich. Boškovic even designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death.
<< We know about Airy's experiment >>
CONCLUSION: The deflection of starlight known as stellar aberration is NOT due to the Earth’s motion, but is an external bending of light before reaching the
telescope.

OR that there is no luminiferous aether!

2. The relativistic expectation sanctioned by Einstein in 1924, was that the MGP experiment should detect a full fringe shift in order to
confirm General Relativity, whereas a null result would have been compatible with the notion of a partial aether drag. 

Note that the expectations regarding the null result had now been inverted with respect to the MM experiment, because the MGP experiment tested for rotation and not translation of the earth.  So argued Einstein.

In this context, the authors (Paulo N. Correa, M.Sc.,Ph.D. and Alexandra N. Correa, HBA) wonder why should rotation be measurable because of a Space-Time drag of inertial frames in rotation, and translation remain unmeasurable and unable to elicit the dragging of its own inertial frame, when translation is also a gravitational motion and there must be equivalence in principle between inertial and non-inertial frames?

After all, to be consistent with itself, as Aspden has pointed out, Relativity should have followed Mach's lead and proposed that one should not
be able to electromagnetically measure any speed of rotation with respect to Space.

Why should GR "to be consistent with itself . . .  have followed Mach's lead and proposed that one should not be able to electromagnetically measure any speed of rotation with respect to Space"?
Mach's Principle was nothing more than a hypothesis that was never shown to have any basis.
Even Isaac Newton, long before Ernst Mach was aware of the implications and proposed the "Newton's Bucket Experiment".

No, Einstein General Relativity does not include Mach's Principle. Initially, Einstein would certainly have preferred a system but he found that was not possible.
Ernst Mach hypothesised that even rotary motion was relative so that the forces due to rotation (centripetal, Coriolis etc) could be explained the stars, etc rotating above the object.

Funnily the name was given to the "principle" by Einstein who discarded it on "his pathway to General Relativity".
You can read more in Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity in technology Chapter "Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")".

Be that as it may, the question that awakens one's attention is - why should Relativity (GR), when predicting the outcome of the MGP experiment, expect a positive fringe shift with regard to the rotation of the earth, whereas beforehand, as a Special Theory (SR), it had based its axiomatic assumptions upon the null result of the MM experiment with regard to translation of the earth?

Because the MMX experiment was intended to measure a uniform linear velocity (no acceleration) and the MGP experiment was measuring a rotation which involves acceleration - big difference!

Back in 1924, the relativistic expectation, as proposed by Silberstein and sanctioned by Einstein, was indeed that the MGP experiment should detect a full fringe shift if it were to confirm Relativity, whereas a null result would have been compatible with the notion of a partial aether drag. 

The expectations regarding the null result had been inverted with respect to the MM experiment, because the MGP experiment tested for rotation and not translation of the earth - so argued Relativity.

And relativity argued correctly. But it did not need relativity to explain it.
Fom Newton's time uniform linear motion has been known to be relative but non-uniform motion, necessarily requiring acceleration is not relative but absolute.

The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments.  Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes,

No, it had some experimental error as do all experiments "The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000".
but it is quite a different measurement to the MMX experiment.

the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation.

No, it couldn't. The rate of rotation is directly proportional the number of fringes .

Indeed, why should GR predict that rotation was optically measurable but not translation?

That is quite a deep question but essentially uniforn translation does not require any acceleration but uniform rotation always requires centripetal acceleration towards the

This question is all the more poignant as Ernst Mach, whose work was considered by Einstein himself to be the forerunner of Relativity, had suggested precisely this postulate on the basis of what he saw to be the impossibility of distinguishing whether the earth rotated or .was immobile and the stars alone circled the earth.

Einstein would have preferred Mach's "total relativity" of both linear and angular motion but that not possible and the cause is acceleration which applied to masses causes inertial forces which can be measured.

But these things are so hard to explain to you because you do not seem to understand or accept even the simplest "laws" of motion.