15 per hour (Behind the Curve)

  • 34 Replies
  • 1342 Views
15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« on: April 01, 2019, 07:51:15 AM »
Hi everyone,

I've just watched the documentary "Behind the Curve", in which a falt-earther (Bob Knodel, I think) talks about an experiment made with a 20 000 $ high-quality gyroscope. With that gyroscope they tried to demonstrate that Earth doesn't rotate (as Round Earth theory afirm). However, he admits that the result of the experiment was that, according to the gyroscope, Earth was rotating more or less at a rate of 15 per hour, just as RE Theory says. Nevertheless he decides to reject this conclusion.

What do you think about this? Don't you think that make an experiment and reject the results because they don't fit to your theory is irrational?

Thank you

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093

Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2019, 12:52:40 PM »
What do you think about this? Don't you think that make an experiment and reject the results because they don't fit to your theory is irrational?
Yes, it is completely irrational and shows they aren't being scientific and looking for the truth.

This shows they are trying to find evidence to fit their narrative rather than trying to find the truth by accepting whatever the evidence shows.

As Sandokhan has pointed out, this has already been discussed.
They are ignoring the evidence and looking for excuses. It shows Earth rotates (and is round) quite conclusively.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2019, 10:25:00 PM »
What do you think about this? Don't you think that make an experiment and reject the results because they don't fit to your theory is irrational?
It shows Earth rotates (and is round) quite conclusively.

Let's put your statement to the test.



Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

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

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

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


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

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

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)


This is how the correct Sagnac formula is derived: we have single continuous clockwise path, and a single continuous counterclockwise path.

If we desire the Coriolis effect, we simply substract as follows:

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


For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.

For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

Experimentally, the Michelson-Gale test was a closed loop, but not mathematically. Michelson treated mathematically each of the longer sides/arms of the interferometer as a separate entity: no closed loop was formed at all. Therefore the mathematical description put forth by Michelson has nothing to do with the correct definition of the Sagnac effect (two pulses of light are sent in opposite direction around a closed loop) (either circular or a single uniform path). By treating each side/arm separately, Michelson was describing and analyzing the Coriolis effect, not the Sagnac effect.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

Connecting the two sides through a single mathematical description closes the loop; treating each side separately does not. The Sagnac effect requires, by definition, a structure, the end of which is connected to the beginning.


A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers



page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.



Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:



Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

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

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

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


*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2019, 11:27:52 PM »
What do you think about this? Don't you think that make an experiment and reject the results because they don't fit to your theory is irrational?
It shows Earth rotates (and is round) quite conclusively.
Let's put your statement to the test.

Let's put your honesty to the test! I was not logged in at the time that this post was made:
It shows Earth rotates (and is round) quite conclusively.
My first posts today was this: Flat Earth Debate / Re: SMOKING GUN Message by rabinoz on Today at 08:49:07 AM .

Therefore your post shows quite conclusively that you are a liar! A little honesty would be much appreciated Mr Sandokhan.

Goodbye proven liar!

PS Don't tell anyone, but I wasn't even out of bed today at 05:52:40 AM EAST.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2019, 11:35:56 PM »
What do you think about this? Don't you think that make an experiment and reject the results because they don't fit to your theory is irrational?
It shows Earth rotates (and is round) quite conclusively.
Let's put your statement to the test.

Let's put your honesty to the test! I was not logged in at the time that this post was made:
It shows Earth rotates (and is round) quite conclusively.
My first posts today was this: Flat Earth Debate / Re: SMOKING GUN Message by rabinoz on Today at 08:49:07 AM .

Therefore your post shows quite conclusively that you are a liar! A little honesty would be much appreciated Mr Sandokhan.

Goodbye proven liar!

PS Don't tell anyone, but I wasn't even out of bed today at 05:52:40 AM EAST.

You are using a proxy.

You are not fooling anyone here anymore.

You are the one LYING.

Here is the proof.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80143.0

I guess I should have written that out in as "A force pointing towards the centre is enough to maintain circular motion."
Sorry about that. So I'll ignore all the nebular motion stuff for now.


But the original message was signed jackblack, not rabinoz.

As usual, your poor excuses cannot hide the fact that you screwed up, and should have been banned for a month, according to the rules:

Rule #3

3. Multiple Accounts
Do not create alternate accounts ('alts').

3. Multiple Accounts 
Automatic ban. A minimum ban of 1 month will be placed on the original account; the alternative account will be banned permanently.


rabinoz has just stated that he and jackblack are one and the same person.


How in the world can you blame the quote function, when obviously YOU RECOGNIZED THAT STATEMENT AS YOUR VERY OWN, and simply expounded on it, and apologized for it?

You simply forgot you posted it some minutes earlier from another account, that is all.

Why are the rules regarding an alt not applied in this case?

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 17944
  • Backstage
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2019, 11:51:46 PM »

How in the world can you blame the quote function, when obviously YOU RECOGNIZED THAT STATEMENT AS YOUR VERY OWN, and simply expounded on it, and apologized for it?

You simply forgot you posted it some minutes earlier from another account, that is all.

Why are the rules regarding an alt not applied in this case?

He has to decide to be fair. using multiple accounts to trick other users, to mock them is not an honest behavior. a person in this attitude deserves to be ignored.

when I raised this issue, the administration asked me do not ignore him because not to interrupt the debatings. However, it became clear that in this process, it would not stop using multiple accounts and the administration would continue to close their eyes about his crimes.

it proves that why they don't give us the right to be a moderator. because then we will be able to see that they are clone accounts thanks to IP records. For this reason, they only choose moderators from their sub-accounts. Clearly the managers never actually change.I suggest you do what I do until they are honest with us, ignore the managers who use the clone accounts, and ignore the clonetor rabinoz and jackblack and other accounts that keep it going to use. You can use my list.






Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2019, 04:22:07 AM »
Let's put your statement to the test.
Posting your same refuted nonsense wont help your case.
It just shows you are desparate.
If you were capable of doing the math correctly (and did so honestly) you would come up with the same result obtained by countless scientists, that the shift is proportional to the area of the loop and the angular velocity.
Your formula is pure garbage and makes no sense at all, as it indicates uniform translational motion of the entire system should magically produce a shift when there is absolutely no basis for it.

Like I have told you repeatedly, if you want to try doing something as complex as this, start from the basics. Start by showing the derivation for the time taken for light to travel around a stationary loop.

Anything else you post regarding the Sagnac effect is just the same old refuted BS which offers absolutely nothing new.

And I said that, not Rab.

rabinoz has just stated that he and jackblack are one and the same person.
No, he simply made a mistake because your inability to honestly quote people.

However, it became clear that in this process, it would not stop using multiple accounts
You mean it became clear that multiple people were refuting your claims, and you couldn't handle it.

I suggest you do what I do until they are honest with us
You and Sandokhan are the dishonest ones here, not us.
You can't handle people refuting you, so you lie about them so you can pretend you have a reason to ignore them.


Now can you offer anything to address the topic?
What do you think the experiment shows other than the clear rotation of Earth?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2019, 05:00:15 AM »
rabinoz has just stated that he and jackblack are one and the same person.
No, he simply made a mistake because your inability to honestly quote people.

There was no discussion/debate between me and your alt, rabinoz, in that thread whatsoever: no quoting whatsoever of any of your alts sentences.

Using your alt, you VOLUNTARILY COMMENTED ON YOUR PREVIOUS POST, even apologized for it.

However, you screwed up the identity of your alts, and finally we learned the truth: rabinoz is using an alt, jackblack.

No amount of excuses can change these facts.

Here is the proof.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80143.0

I guess I should have written that out in as "A force pointing towards the centre is enough to maintain circular motion."
Sorry about that. So I'll ignore all the nebular motion stuff for now.


But the original message was signed jackblack, not rabinoz.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2019, 05:05:26 AM »
that the shift is proportional to the area of the loop and the angular velocity.

Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.

SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA



The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26797550_Self-pumped_phase-conjugate_fiber-optic_gyro

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)


NO AREA INVOLVED IN THIS SAGNAC EXPERIMENT.


Here is a SECOND experiment performed by Professor Yeh, a SAGNAC EXPERIMENT WITHOUT AN AREA:




Phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, P. Yeh, I. McMichael, M. Khoshnevisan, Applied Optics 25(7):1029-30 April 1986

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.4)

FINAL FORMULA:

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


ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula involves an area:

4Aω/c2


My formula is flawless.

It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters.

What the readers can observe is your full cognitive dissonance, a condition which unfortunately precludes you from facing reality.

Reality is starring you right in the face.

Here is my formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

A total victory for FE.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2019, 05:08:25 AM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2019, 05:58:18 AM »
rabinoz has just stated that he and jackblack are one and the same person.
No, he simply made a mistake because your inability to honestly quote people.
I did NOT make that post and you are again deceptively editing quotes and if you persist in doing this I will be forced to make an official complaint.
You can get any administrator to look at the record of my posts to verify that.
I have never had any alternate accounts (alts) and I have never used any proxy server.

Just face the facts - YOU are wrong (again).

If you want to persist with this stupid charade ::) do it in the thread I made in Angry Ranting >:( and NOT here on the open forum!

PS Why would JackBlack and I communicate by PMs if we were "alts"? Any administrator could verify that from way back before you got this stupid idea in your head.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2019, 06:34:53 AM »
There was no conversation between myself and the user named rabinoz in that thread.

No communication.

YOU VOLUNTARILY posted a message which expounded on your previous statement, posted under the name jackblack, and even apologized for it.

Your statement speaks for itself.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80143.0

I guess I should have written that out in as "A force pointing towards the centre is enough to maintain circular motion."
Sorry about that. So I'll ignore all the nebular motion stuff for now.

But the original message was signed jackblack, not rabinoz.

I guess I should have written that out in as

You even quoted the whole sentence. You even apologized for it.

No mistake whatsoever on your part.


Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2019, 06:46:27 AM »
Aaaand there it is.

*

sokarul

  • 15833
  • Discount Chemist
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2019, 07:54:24 AM »
A victory for FE?


« Last Edit: April 02, 2019, 07:57:21 AM by sokarul »
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2019, 08:14:02 AM »
What a bunch of effing whiny toddlers.

Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2019, 01:13:02 PM »
Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.
We have been over this. There is no need for any escape.
Showing a picture with 2 loops, and thus 2 areas, doesn't help your case.

Like I said, if you want to try any refutation you need to start with the basics, which you either clearly don't grasp at all, or are blatantly lying about.
Show us the derivation for a stationary loop, once you manage that you can start putting some motion into the loop, starting with simple translational motion and then trying rotational motion.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2019, 01:38:42 PM »
Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.
We have been over this. There is no need for any escape.
Showing a picture with 2 loops, and thus 2 areas, doesn't help your case.

There is no area whatsoever in those interferometers.

Professor Yeh's interferometer features NO AREA at all, just TWO SINGLE SEGMENTS OF LIGHT traveling in OPEN LOOPS consisting of different lengths, which connect the the mirrors of the interferometer: there is no area enclosed at all.






page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

NO CLOSED LOOP, NO AREA.

L is the entire length of the fiber, Professor Yeh specifies that quite clearly.



(closed loop)



(Open-ended (non-closed) loops: a single segment from end to end)

Then, by your own very statement you lose.

that the shift is proportional to the area of the loop and the angular velocity.

Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.

SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA



The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26797550_Self-pumped_phase-conjugate_fiber-optic_gyro

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)


NO AREA INVOLVED IN THIS SAGNAC EXPERIMENT.


Here is a SECOND experiment performed by Professor Yeh, a SAGNAC EXPERIMENT WITHOUT AN AREA:

Phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, P. Yeh, I. McMichael, M. Khoshnevisan, Applied Optics 25(7):1029-30 April 1986

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.4)

FINAL FORMULA:

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


ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula involves an area:

4Aω/c2


My formula is flawless.

It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters.

What the readers can observe is your full cognitive dissonance, a condition which unfortunately precludes you from facing reality.

Reality is starring you right in the face.

Here is my formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

A total victory for FE.

Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2019, 02:40:29 PM »
<pathetic spam>
Like I said, start from a simple stationary interferometer. Once you have figured that out you can start with translation and then rotation.
Stop bringing up PCMs as they have nothing to do with the interferometers we are discussing.

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2019, 05:54:20 PM »
You even quoted the whole sentence. You even apologized for it.

No mistake whatsoever on your part.
There was a mistake on MY part and it was caused by:
1) Your stupid failure to indicate whom you are replying to.
2) And my failure to check who had written exactly what in such a jumbled thread.

JackBlack is not my "alt" and I am not JackBlack's "alt".
We are two quite different people.
We presumably live in different locations - I do not know where JackBlack lives though I think it's near Melbourne!
We are occupied quite differently. I have been retired for over 18 years and JackBlack is still employed.

Get used to it!

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2019, 05:56:39 PM »
Now, there is no escape possible for you from this statement.
We have been over this. There is no need for any escape.
Showing a picture with 2 loops, and thus 2 areas, doesn't help your case.
I DID NOT WRITE THAT POST and YOU KNOW it! Once again, I was not logged in then nor even on my computer.

My first post today was this:
How to explain this table :
After you read this:
You are once again guilty or total deceit in what amounts to forgery!

How are we supposed to have an intelligent debate with a proven deceiver who is guilty again of what amounts to forgery?

*

Stash

  • 2043
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2019, 06:37:24 PM »
My formula is flawless.

It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters.

What the readers can observe is your full cognitive dissonance, a condition which unfortunately precludes you from facing reality.

Reality is starring you right in the face.

Here is my formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

A total victory for FE.

Just as a pre-flight check of my sanity, can you point out that:

A) You derived the formula, prove that. As I google about, 'your' formula appears kinda nowhere.
B) It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division. And again, it's your formula. Citation requested.
c) It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters. Citation requested.

Simple requests, I think?

Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2019, 09:37:18 PM »
My formula is flawless.

It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters.

What the readers can observe is your full cognitive dissonance, a condition which unfortunately precludes you from facing reality.

Reality is starring you right in the face.

Here is my formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

A total victory for FE.

Just as a pre-flight check of my sanity, can you point out that:

A) You derived the formula, prove that. As I google about, 'your' formula appears kinda nowhere.
B) It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division. And again, it's your formula. Citation requested.
c) It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters. Citation requested.

Simple requests, I think?

Simple? This is Sandy we're talking about here!

Can we please just ignore him when he gets hung up on his Sagnac-or-no-sagnac-that-is-the-question ? He uses it to derail threads that FE find very uncomfortable

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2019, 10:21:07 PM »
There was a mistake on MY part and it was caused by:

There could not have been any mistake on your part.

There was no conversation whatsoever between you and me in that thread.

None whatsoever.

You are resorting to the "misplaced quote" explanation, where there can be none at all.

You simply mixed up your multiple accounts and wrote this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80143.0


Quote from: rabinoz on March 16, 2019, 05:25:58 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on March 16, 2019, 03:38:57 AM
A force pointing towards the centre is enough to produce circular motion.

I guess I should have written that out in as "A force pointing towards the centre is enough to maintain circular motion."
Sorry about that. So I'll ignore all the nebular motion stuff for now.

rabinoz has just stated that HE WROTE THE MESSAGE POSTED EARLIER by jackblack.

jackblack is rabinoz's alt!


NOBODY FORCED YOU, using any quote at all, TO RESPOND TO THAT STATEMENT.

YOU SIMPLY RECOGNIZED IT AS YOUR OWN, AND ACTED ACCORDINGLY.

YOU EVEN EXPOUNDED ON THE MEANING OF THE QUOTE. YOU COULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT UNLESS YOU RECOGNIZED IT AS YOUR VERY OWN.

YOU APOLOGIZED FOR IT.

No mistake on your part.

Yet, here you are whining about the "quotes".

There was no conversation whatsoever between you and me in that thread.

You simply forgot you were using the other alt and responded, benefiting all the while from the complicity of the RE mods.

YOU EXPOUNDED ON THE STATEMENT, RECOGNIZING IT AS YOUR OWN.

YOU APOLOGIZED FOR IT.

YOU CLEARLY RECOGNIZED AS YOUR OWN.

There is no turning back.

You simply screwed up the alts.



A) You derived the formula, prove that. As I google about, 'your' formula appears kinda nowhere.
B) It is being used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division. And again, it's your formula. Citation requested.
c) It was peer reviewed in the finest journal on Optics: Journal of Optics Letters. Citation requested.

Simple requests, I think?


Almost each and every message posted by me, on this subject, has included the requested references.

Are you able to read a scientific paper?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2149444#msg2149444

A second reference which confirms my global/generalized Sagnac effect formula.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers



Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


Here is the first confirmation:

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

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

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

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



« Last Edit: April 02, 2019, 10:23:27 PM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 21600
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2019, 10:48:47 PM »
There was a mistake on MY part and it was caused by:
Go jump in the lake. JackBlack is not my "alt" get used to the facts for once in your life!

*

Stash

  • 2043
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2019, 10:56:34 PM »
Almost each and every message posted by me, on this subject, has included the requested references.

Are you able to read a scientific paper?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2149444#msg2149444

Yes. Is the link above to this site supposed to be your scientific paper where you derived your formula? I'm not sure a forum post falls into the scientific paper bucket, but whatever.

Now, back to my questions. You derived this formula and then sent it to the Navy and the Navy uses it now? Do you have evidence that the formula the Navy is using is yours? If so, lay it on us.

And the formula you derived was peer reviewed in that Journal of Optics as well? Citation for this as well?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2019, 11:13:10 PM »
Now, back to my questions. You derived this formula and then sent it to the Navy and the Navy uses it now? Do you have evidence that the formula the Navy is using is yours? If so, lay it on us.

And the formula you derived was peer reviewed in that Journal of Optics as well? Citation for this as well?


You are trolling the upper forums.

Are you telling your readers that in addition to not being able to read bibliographical references, you also cannot understand a simple equation?

Can you read simple English?



If you are not scientifically illiterate, can you recognize the equation featured in the JOURNAL OF OPTICS LETTERS, having been peer-reviewed, and also used/published by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE?

Here it is:

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

Are you able to understand and comprehend this equation?

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

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2


Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article


Here is the first confirmation:

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)


Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

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


Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

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




If you cannot understand a research paper and find yourself wondering aloud along these lines "Citation for this as well?", it means you should not be posting in the upper forums at all: you are simply trolling this place.

Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2019, 11:39:30 PM »
Almost each and every message posted by me, on this subject, has included the requested references.
For a fundamentally different system, making those references completely useless for backing you up.
Even those papers that you do quote, DON'T BACK UP YOUR FORMULA!
Instead they use the radius and the length of the fibre optics and angular velocity of the loop.
You can't just pretend that that magically becomes the linear velocity. They are fundamentally different.
What isn't different is using the radius and length to find the area (as it is really just a collection of bundled loops) and leaving in the angular velocity.

So are you able to read and understand scientific papers?

Are you capable of thinking for yourself and doing the simple derivation?
A simple stationary loop shouldn't be hard, yet you are unable or unwilling to do it, almost as if you have no idea or know it will refute you.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4093
Re: 15 per hour (Behind the Curve)
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2019, 11:57:08 PM »
For a fundamentally different system, making those references completely useless for backing you up.
Even those papers that you do quote, DON'T BACK UP YOUR FORMULA!

You are telling your readers that you are either scientifically illiterate or that your cognitive dissonance problem precludes you from facing reality.

Here are the direct citations which prove that you are wrong.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division



page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

You have been proven wrong.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf

ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE US OF NAVAL RESEARCH.

Page 18 of the pdf document, Section 3.0 Progress:

Our first objective was to demonstrate that the phase-conjugate fiberoptic gyro (PCFOG) described in Section 2.3 is sensitive to rotation. This phase shift plays an important role in the detection of the Sagnac phase shift due to rotation.

Page 38 of the pdf document, page 6 of Appendix 3.1


it does demonstrate the measurement of the Sagnac phase shift Eq. (3)


HERE IS EQUATION (3) OF THE PAPER, PAGE 3 OF APPENDIX 3.1:

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

Again, you have been proven wrong.


Instead they use the radius and the length of the fibre optics and angular velocity of the loop.
You can't just pretend that that magically becomes the linear velocity. They are fundamentally different.

So you ARE scientifically illiterate.

v = radius x angular velocity

V = R x Ω


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


What isn't different is using the radius and length to find the area (as it is really just a collection of bundled loops) and leaving in the angular velocity.

For the second time, now there is no possible escape for you from this statement.

There is no area whatsoever in those interferometers.

Professor Yeh's interferometer features NO AREA at all, just TWO SINGLE SEGMENTS OF LIGHT traveling in OPEN LOOPS consisting of different lengths, which connect the the mirrors of the interferometer: there is no area enclosed at all.






page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

NO CLOSED LOOP, NO AREA.

L is the entire length of the fiber, Professor Yeh specifies that quite clearly.



(closed loop)



(Open-ended (non-closed) loops: a single segment from end to end)

Then, by your own very statement you lose.

For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.

For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula involves an area:

4Aω/c2