On Sandokhan definitions of the Sagnac and Coriolis Effects

You are wasting your time.

Yes, it does seem that you have no interest in addressing the issue and trying to have a debate.

Going to more complex systems is pointless when we can't even deal with a simple case.

You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Like I said before, if you want to call it that, go ahead, that doesn't mean it isn't the Sagnac formula nor that it doesn't describe the actual shift.

You wanting to change its name does nothing.

Now can you address the massive flaw in your derivation?

So far all there is to say my derivation is wrong is your baseless claim and assertion that your derivation is correct.

Can you admit that either your derivation is wrong, or admit that you think to find a total time you add together 2 times?

Also, as I said, here is a graph:
This shows the progression of the beam of light around the loop, and has the time difference at the end quite clear:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2xsazmjcrc

This uses the formulas provided before, with the final time difference also matching the formula I have provided before.

i.e. the first section of the red line takes a time of l1/(c-v1). The second section takes l2/(c+v2).
This gives a total time of l1/(c-v1) + l2/(c+v2).
For the green line you instead have l2/(c-v2) and l1/(c+v1), giving a total time of l2/(c-v2) + l1/(c+v1).
This gives a time difference of l2/(c-v2) + l1/(c+v1) - (l1/(c-v1) + l2/(c+v2)), clearly indicated at the end.

This is the real time difference between the arrival of the 2 beams and thus is the shift that is observed.

This again, shows my formula is correct.

Meanwhile, your formula requires that the red path ends before it even reaches the end of the first arm, physically impossible.

Now, can you produce one for your derivation, showing how the difference in time arises, or finally admit your derivation is wrong?

I've tried to be polite about this.  But there are some here that have elected the way of pain.

If you all don't start pretending to like each other I will carve up the troublemakers.

You haven't done your homework.

G. Malykin's treatise has over 300 references, and yet, it missed one of the most important ones, a paper published by Dr. Silberstein in 1922.

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

This paper explains the issue raised by Malykin, but evidently missed by him.

Why is this SO IMPORTANT?

From Malykin's paper, section 5.5, Sagnac Effect and Coriolis Forces

The author of Ref. [27] thought that the effect of Coriolis forces
on counterpropagating waves in a three-mirror ring interferometer
accounted for the optical path of a wave travelling
in the direction of rotation in the form of a triangle with
somewhat convex sides; a wave spreading in the opposite
direction had an optical path in the form of a triangle with
somewhat concave sides. For this reason, the triangles had
different areas. Hence, the relative time delay between the
counterpropagating waves, the additional travel time of each
wave dependent on the Sagnac effect being proportional to
the closed contour area [35].
After a little while, however, A Lunn [70] showed that the
triangles are actually equal in area even though their contours
for counterpropagating waves are not quite coincident during
rotation (the contribution of the deflection of each counterpropagating
light beam caused by the Coriolis forces to a
change of the contour area is totally compensated for by the
contribution from the altered angle of incidence on the next
mirror). It is easiest to demonstrate the equality of contour
areas for counterpropagating waves in a fixed frame of
reference where Coriolis forces are lacking. In such a case,
only rotations of reflecting mirrors at given moments need to
be taken into consideration as was done by M Laue [69].


However, Dr. Silberstein answered Lunn's paper in 1922, and showed that Lunn's explanation was incomplete.

Malykin MISSED this most important reference.

But not me.

Had Malykin read the 1922 reference, he could not have dismissed Silberstein's papers.

Question: did Malykin actually know of the 1922 publication by Silberstein, but chose not to include it on his list of references?

I read Silberstein's 1922 open letter (not a 'paper') regarding Lunn's criticism. I'm not seeing any direct refutation, as Malykin states, that "all nonrelativistic explanations of the Sagnac effect...are fundamentally wrong." And his conclusion that, "the Sagnac effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of addition of velocities."

Did I miss something in Silberstein's 1922 letter? If so, what might that be?

The 1922 paper was not meant to be a refutation of something relating to relativity, but of Lunn's previous criticism.

Dr. Silberstein showed that the effect measured by Sagnac, using his non-symmetrical interferometer was actually caused by THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Therefore, Malykin missed this most important fact: Silberstein's 1921 paper could not be dismissed.

jackblack, your ramblings are meaningless and they have ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED RIGHT HERE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82968.msg2203590#msg2203590

PAGE 1 OF THIS VERY THREAD


Here is STOKES' THEOREM applied to the light interferometer:



You derived the formula for the LEFT SIDE OF THE EQUATION.

I derived the formula for the RIGHT SIDE OF THE EQUATION.

Are you able to understand this very simple thing?

Now, for the MGX/RLGs, there will also be a factor of proportionality: R/L.

R x x L

This factor of proportionality was proven, for the first time, for the LISA Space Antenna:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1985230#msg1985230




Again, please try and understand.

You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, the left hand side of Stokes' line integral applied to the light interferometer.

I derived the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, the right hand side.

Your formula is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

My formula is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.

Unless you can understand this very fact, there is nothing else anyone here can do for you.


Like I said before, if you want to call it that, go ahead, that doesn't mean it isn't the Sagnac formula nor that it doesn't describe the actual shift.

But it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than the SAGNAC EFFECT.

It can't be the SAGNAC EFFECT.

The CORIOLIS EFFECT is a physical effect on the light beams, a slight modification of their path.

The SAGNAC EFFECT is an electromagnetic effect, the modification of the velocities of the light beams.

They cannot be the same.

You seem to be very confused.

You are running circles within your own mind, unable to acknowledge the reality: you derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT, while I derived the SAGNAC EFFECT.

My formula is completely validated by Professor's Yeh own derivation, published in the Journal of Optics Letters.

Yet, you will not understand these very basic facts, and are continuing to SPAM and TROLL this forum.

Sigh...

This is why we can't have nice things!

I think we've taken this thread as far as it can go.