On Sandokhan definitions of the Sagnac and Coriolis Effects

stash... is your message supposed to be a joke?

No

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.

From the conclusion of the paper you cited. Apparently, it’s purely theoretical without any empirical evidence, unlike STR:

"8. Some experiments could be performed to test the conclusions of this paper.

Suggested experiments include:

1. A Michelson-Morley test on the moon, where there is no atmosphere. It would be interesting to determine whether the result is different from that on Earth.
2. A Sagnac test on the moon would show if the light travelled relative to fixed space, and ignored the movement of the moon.
3. Both of those tests repeated in space off a satellite or rocket.
4. A repeat of the Pegram tests would confirm the conclusion concerning electromagnetism"

Suggested experiments include:

1. A Michelson-Morley test on the moon, where there is no atmosphere. It would be interesting to determine whether the result is different from that on Earth.
2. A Sagnac test on the moon would show if the light travelled relative to fixed space, and ignored the movement of the moon.
3. Both of those tests repeated in space off a satellite or rocket.
4. A repeat of the Pegram tests would confirm the conclusion concerning electromagnetism"

5. something, anything. (except conjecture.)

unlike STR

Here are your fake STR experiments:

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

You mean you have proven you will just search for whatever you think ill support you and post it without any concern for what it actually indicates, just like all the other references you have posted which do not support you at all and instead refute you.

I told you that you do not understand the Sagnac effect.

My references are always the very best.


https://www.osapublishing.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-6-8-401

Sagnac effect in fiber gyroscopes

H.J. Arditty and H.C. Lefevre

Optics Letters, vol. 6, 1981


The Arditty/Lefevre paper is a classic in the field, the best.

Only someone who has not studied this subject can state anything else.


Notice how it states quite clearly that the shift is 4*A*w/c^2?

The authors present TWO FORMULAS FOR THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

One has an area, the other one does not.

This is the entire point of the paper and of this discussion.

https://web.infn.it/GINGER/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/sagnac_AJP.pdf

The Sagnac effect and pure geometry

American Journal of Physics 83, 427 (2015)

Dr. A. Tartaglia and Dr. M.L. Ruggiero are two of the best known experts in ring laser interferometry and relativity in rotation frames in the world.


They present TWO FORMULAS for the Sagnac effect: amazingly and paradoxically these distinguished authors do not seem to infer the consequences of the two derivations.


The first formula, derived using differential geometry (page 3 of the pdf document), is this:

Δt = 4Aω/c²

A = area enclosed by the path of the light beams


Then, the authors derive A SECOND FORMULA for the Sagnac effect, which DOES NOT feature an area:




This formula does not include the area at all, and is proportional to the VELOCITY of the light beams (and thus is proportional to the RADIUS of rotation).


Two different formulas, featuring two different physical descriptions.

This means that the formulas must be describing TWO DIFFERENT PHYSICAL PHENOMENA.


The first formula, which displays the AREA of the interferometer, is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

The final formula is this:

dt = 4ωA/c²


CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?




NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.


Your formula has AN AREA.

The SECOND FORMULA derived by the authors DOES NOT.


Here are your admissions that I am right:

Quote from: sandokhan on September 30, 2019, 10:10:26 PM

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.

The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity

Your formula is completely different from Yeh's.


BUT IT IS THE VERY SAME!!!


Here is my formula:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

Let V₁ = R₁ x Ω

Let V₂ = R₂ x Ω

2(R₁ΩL₁ + R₂ΩL₂)/c²

=

2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c²

THIS IS THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:



φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc

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

MY FORMULA!


It is one the same formula.

Had the MGX or the RLGs features a different situation, then the formulas obtaind would have been different.

Yet they are the very same.

This means that they describe the same situation.


Start dealing with a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors.

Of course.

For your information, PCMs act just like normal mirrors for the SAGNAC EFFECT.



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


As I told you before, it isn't an experiment.

Professor Ruyong Wang is the greatest expert in the world on FOC and PCMs.

His papers are the most referenced when it comes to the linear/uniform/translational SAGNAC EFFECT, using FOC and PCMs.

Are you saying that his derivation is not correct?

Why don't you write to Professor Wang and let him know of your opinion?

Rest assured that his derivation is absolutely correct.


https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf



The equation which expresses the relationship between interference fringes and time differences is F=dt[c/λ] (where dt = 4vL/c2).

This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path. Second, it gives us important implications: The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ where v is the speed of the moving arc segment AB (where R is the radius of the circular motion, Ω is the rotational rate).

If we increase the radius of the circular motion as shown in Fig. 6, the arc segment AB will approach a linear segment AB, the circular motion will approach the linear motion, the phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment will approach the phase-conjugate first-order experiment as shown in Fig. 4, and the phase shift is always φ = 4πvL/cλ.


The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ


Professor Wang multiplies the radius by the angular velocity, AND NOT THE RADIUS BY THE LENGTH, like you have catastrophically just done.


https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf


PAGE 4

The phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path [16], not the closed path like that in the most Sagnac experiments, makes this argument even more
serious.

Here is reference [16]:

[16] P. Yeh, I. McMichael, M. Khoshnevisan, Appl. Opt. 25 (1986) 1029.

EXACTLY MY REFERENCE!!!

Professor Wang acknowledges that there IS NO CLOSED LOOP, NO AREA, in Professor Yeh's experiment.


The phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path [16], not the closed path like that in the most Sagnac experiments, makes this argument even more serious.


And it gets even worse for you, just like I promised.

PAGE 5

This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path. Second, it gives us important implications as analyzed below. (Although in the experiment [16], the flexible fiber path was rotating and the other optical parts were not, in a similar experiment [17] all optical parts were rotating together.) The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ where v is the speed of the moving arc segment AB.

Here are references [16] and [17]:

[16] P. Yeh, I. McMichael, M. Khoshnevisan, Appl. Opt. 25 (1986) 1029.
[17] I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Opt. Lett. 11 (1986) 686.

Exactly my references!!!

First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path.


The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ


Professor Wang multiplies the radius by the angular velocity, AND NOT THE RADIUS BY THE LENGTH, like you have catastrophically just done.


The greatest expert in the world on FOC and PCMs, Professor Ruyong Wang does not multiply the radius by the length, on the contrary.

He multiplies the angular velocity by the radius, JUST LIKE I HAVE DONE.


Moreover, he plainly states that the interferometer used by Professor Yeh DOES NOT INCLUDE AN AREA AT ALL, it is a segment light path.


Your trolling is not working anymore.

unlike STR

Here are your fake STR experiments:

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

So far you're 0 for 1 in terms of evidence for your assertion. Are you just making things up? What makes you say this:

"In the first paper, Test of Special Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, the authors of the paper committed a grave omission, failing to take into account the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/agathan5.pdf"

The link you posted is a 404.

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7149

One of the best.

Evidence of special relativity from a dog.

Yes, actual quotes from sokarul:

"You have to get over the fact that two things can be equal and not be the same thing.

A dead particle does not equal an alive particle.

It it theories water came from asteroids.

So the ground accelerates them, then why do they not leave the ground?

I wasn't thinking about the other type of acceleration."

This game again?

"I can prove precession"
"I can prove there is no precession."
"Different EM frequencies do not exist."

And of course all your alien and UFO talk in you fantasy thread.


Did it really hurt that much that a simple dog can demonstrate doppler shift? 

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7149

One of the best.

All it says is sort of a sound byte, not evidence of anything:

"(c) Jaseya et al [38] expriment. In this experiment two lasers were beating mounted on a rotating table; these lasers were arranged perpendicularly the one to other, (similarity with Michelson-Morley). It could really be very difficult to detect the from-East-to-West ether-drift -of velocity 0.35 km/sec at mean latitudes- on the Earth, This relatively small effect was much bellow the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth."

By what means and how was it known to the author that the 'relatively small effect was much bellow the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth’?

And, as an aside, why is this paper filled with spelling and grammatical errors? Was it ever peer reviewed by anyone or is is this just at the level of a blog? Doesn't seem like, "one of the best", if the very basics of communications are sloppy & flawed.

Edit: Upon further review, Antonis N. Agathangelidis, the author and book of his you referenced, "Relativity replaced – Ether found around Earth", you said as "One of the best". Is, at best, a one off, self published on Amazon anti-relativity proponent, not subject to any sort of peer review simply espousing his opinions and hypotheses without regard for or fear of any sort of critical examination because no one cares what he has to say. It's just bluster.

And he is "One of your best"? Ouch.

Read the paper. You will learn plenty of things from it, aside from the ether vs relativity debate.

Since you are so stubborn, let me take care right now of your special relativity.

Yuri Galaev, Ph.D.; Senior research officer of the Institute for Radiophysics & Electronics National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS)

The most significant development since Miller has been the
experiments of Yuri Galaev of the Institute of Radiophysics and
Electronics in the Ukraine. Galaev made independent measure-
ments of ether-drift using radiofrequency and optical wave
bands. His research not only "confirmed Miller's results down
to the details"but also allowed computation of the increase of
ether-drift with altitude above the Earth's surface (calculated to
be 8.6 m/sec per meter of altitude).

Now, the English translations of Dr. Yuri Galaev's groundbreaking work and most precise confirmation of the existence of dynamic ether (experiments carried out over the course of several years). Let us remember that, in what follows, it is the ether itself which flows above the flat surface of the earth and not the other way around... that is, both Miller and Galaev measured precisely the velocity and physical qualities of ether as it travels/propagates above the flat earth.


http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev2.pdf

journal pgs 207-224

pg 210 interferometer description
pg 220 ether drift velocity measurements/data

THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine


The positive results of three experiments [1-3], [7- 9], [10] give the basis to consider the effects detected in these experiments, as medium movement developments, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.

Such medium was called as the ether [11] at the times of Maxwell, Michelson and earlier. The conclusion was made in the works [1-3], that the measurement results within millimeter radio waves band can be considered as the experimental hypothesis confirmation of the material medium existence in nature such as the ether. Further discussions of the experiment results [1-3] have shown the expediency of additional experimental analysis of the ether drift problem in an optical wave band.


Thus, in the work, the hypothesis experimental verification about the ether existence in nature, i.e. material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation, in the optical wave band has been performed. The estimation of the ether kinematic viscosity value has been performed. The first order optical method for the ether drift velocity and the ether kinematic viscosity measuring has been proposed and realized.

The method action is based on the development regularities of viscous liquid or gas streams in the directing systems. The significant measurement results have been obtained statistically. The development of the ether drift required effects has been shown. The measured value of the ether kinematic viscosity on the value order has coincided with its calculated value.

The velocity of optical wave propagation depends on the radiation direction and increases with height growth above the Earth's surface. The velocity of optical wave propagation changes its value with a period per one stellar day. The detected effects can be explained by the following:
 
optical wave propagation medium available regarding to the Earth's movement;
 
optical wave propagation medium has the viscosity, i.e. the feature proper to material mediums composed of separate particles;

the medium stream of optical wave propagation has got a space (galactic) origin.

The work results comparison to the experiment results, executed earlier in order of the hypothesis verification about the existence of such material medium as the ether in nature, has been performed. The comparison results have shown the reproduced nature of the ether drift effect measurements in various experiments performed in different geographic requirements with different measurement methods application. The work results can be considered as experimental hypothesis confirmation about the ether existence in nature, i.e. material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.

The following model statements are used at measuring method development [4-6]: the ether is a material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation; the ether has properties of viscous gas; the metals have major etherdynamic resistance. The imagination of the hydroaerodynamic (etherdynamic) effect existence is accepted as the initial position. The method of the first order based on known regularities of viscous gas movement in tubes [27-28] has been proposed and realized within the optical electromagnetic waves band in the work for measuring of the ether drift velocity and ether kinematic viscosity.


http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

journal pgs 211-225

ETHERAL WIND IN EXPERIENCE OF MILLIMETRIC RADIOWAVES PROPAGATION Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine


The ethereal wind speed value, measured in a radio frequency band at the work, is close to the ethereal wind speeds values, measured in electromagnetic waves optical range in the experiments of Miller [5, 6], Michelson, Peas, Pearson [11]. Such comparison results can be considered as mutual confirmation of the research results veracity, the experiment [5, 6] and the experiment [11].

The executed analysis has shown, that this work results can be explained by radiowaves propagation phenomenon in a space parentage driving medium with a gradiant layer speed in this medium ow near the Earth's surface. The gradiant layer available testifies that this medium has the viscosity -- the property intrinsic material media, i.e. media consisting of separate particles. Thus, the executed experiment results agree with the initial hypothesis positions about the Aether material medium existence in the nature.

I told you that you do not understand the Sagnac effect.

Yes, you have told me that repeatedly.
The problem is that you are yet to substantiate it in any way.
Instead you have repeatedly shown you either have no idea what you are talking about or your are intentionally lying to everyone.

My references are always the very best.

The main issue isn't your references, it is how you lie about and repeatedly claim that they back up your formula when they do no such thing.

The authors present TWO FORMULAS FOR THE SAGNAC EFFECT.
One has an area, the other one does not.

So you admit that you were blatantly lying when you falsely claimed that the Sagnac effect does not feature an area?
Especially when you were trying to use that paper, which has an area in the formula, to claim that the area isn't the formula?

Thanks for finally admitting that.

This is the entire point of the paper and of this discussion.

No. The entire point of this discussion is the Sagnac shift for a simple ring interferometer rotating about a point outside its centre.
The point of that paper was to extend the Saganc effect to a fundamentally different system, that of a fibre optic conveyor.

Then, the authors derive A SECOND FORMULA for the Sagnac effect, which DOES NOT feature an area:

Yes, almost as if there are 2 different ways to obtain this shift that is called a Sagnac shift.
One is for a rotating ring interferometer, one is for a fibre optic conveyor.
It isn't surprising that they derive 2 different formulas for 2 different things.

This formula does not include the area at all, and is proportional to the VELOCITY of the light beams (and thus is proportional to the RADIUS of rotation).

Stop lying.
There is no rotation for that formula and no rotation in that system.
That velocity is the velocity of the detector/source (referred to as the object) along the path of the fibre optic conveyor.
That formula has no bearing on a rotating ring interferometer.
It is for a FOC. Do you understand the difference?

Tell us, where in that image is the rotation?

Here are your admissions that I am right:

Again, STOP LYING!
That is my "admission" that the author of that paper is claiming that the Sagnac is the Coriolis effect.
No where in there do I admit that it is the Coriolis effect or that it is not the Sagnac effect.
THIS IS THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:
[/quote]
Again, stop lying.
Yeh's formula does not feature a linear velocity.
Instead, it uses the length of the fibre coil, the radius of the fibre coil, and the angular velocity of the rotation of the system.
This is equivalent to the area of the fibre coil (or more technically the number of loops multiplied by the area) and the angular velocity.
It is not equivalent to a linear velocity. If you want to use a linear velocity you need to find it for every section of the loop, as it changes.
The only way to make it equivalent to a linear velocity is to have both loops be concentric with the centre of rotation.

This means that they describe the same situation.

No, that doesn't.
The formula being the same does not mean it is the same situation.

Start dealing with a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors.
Of course.
For your information, PCMs

Stop lying.
If you are going to start discussing normal mirrors that means not discussing PCMs.

Professor Ruyong Wang is the greatest expert in the world on FOC and PCMs.

I don't care about your pathetic appeals to authority.

Why don't you write to Professor Wang and let him know of your opinion?

And why don't you write to the countless papers that have been provided by me and you which state quite clearly that the Sagnac effect for a rotating ring interferometer is based upon the Area of the interferometer, including those backed up by experimental results and tell them they are wrong and see what they say?

Or why don't you send your nonsense to Wang and see what he says?

Again, the references are on my side, not yours.


Now, quit with all the BS.
Stop bringing up PCMs and FOCs.
Deal with simple ring interferometers, and address the issues raised.

Like I said, if you want to actually try debating this is what you need to do:
Just focus on simple interferometer with normal mirrors and deal with the issues raised:
You need to refute my derivation which you have been unable to show any problem with.
You need to explain why you are finding the difference in time taken for a single beam of light, which corresponds to nothing in reality, and pretending it is the total time taken.
You need to explain why an interferometer which isn't rotating at all and instead is moving with uniform linear motion has a Sagnac shift, when symmetry demands it can't (and my formula says it can't, and the formula produced by so many people says it can't).

You have provided absolutely nothing to back up your claims.
You are yet to find a single reference which claims your formula is correct for a rotating ring interferometer, with normal mirrors.

All you have done is repeatedly avoided the issues and spammed mountains of garbage, blatantly lying about what papers contain.

Read the paper. You will learn plenty of things from it, aside from the ether vs relativity debate.

Since you are so stubborn, let me take care right now of your special relativity.

Is Antonis N. Agathangelidis one of the best you got?  You said as much. If so, I highly question the veracity of your arguments when they are based upon a self-published, zero reviews on Amazon, non-peer reviewed treatise filled with simple spelling errors. I think you can do better as this source you seem to champion is severely lacking from any and all scientific perspectives. Filled with assertions without any empiricism, just the ruminations of someone the scientific world pays zero attention to.

As evidenced by you not answered my one question, "By what means and how was it known to the author that the 'relatively small effect was much bellow the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth’?"

Instead, you copy/pasta'd yet another foot of text, dancing away from my question. Is your intent to perpetually bury people in so much text, quotes, formulae so as to hide the fact that you can't answer a simple question?

That is my "admission" that the author of that paper is claiming that the Sagnac is the Coriolis effect.
No where in there do I admit that it is the Coriolis effect or that it is not the Sagnac effect.

But you did admit that it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

This is as far as we need to take this "debate".

Quote from: sandokhan on September 30, 2019, 10:10:26 PM

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.

YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED THAT YOUR FORMULA IS ACTUALLY THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.


You cannot change your mind just a day later.

Don't you understand what kind of an image you have built for yourself on this very forum?

Once you have admitted that the formula which does feature an area is the Coriolis effect, you can't go back on your statement.


There is nothing else to debate here.


So you admit that you were blatantly lying when you falsely claimed that the Sagnac effect does not feature an area?

The authors are preseting TWO FORMULAS FOR THE SAME EFFECT, they refer to this effect as the SAGNAC EFFECT.

The entire point of this discussion is the Sagnac shift for a simple ring interferometer rotating about a point outside its centre.
The point of that paper was to extend the Saganc effect to a fundamentally different system, that of a fibre optic conveyor.

See how easy it is to spot your utter ignorance on the subject of the Sagnac effect?

The FOC will measure the SAGNAC EFFECT in a uniform/translational/linear motion.

A SEGMENT LIGHT PATH.

Exactly as that featured by Professor Yeh or by a ring laser gyroscope.


Your readers are simply laughing at your cognitive dissonance.


Yes, almost as if there are 2 different ways to obtain this shift that is called a Sagnac shift.
One is for a rotating ring interferometer, one is for a fibre optic conveyor.
It isn't surprising that they derive 2 different formulas for 2 different things.

It is the very same interferometer, the very same principle.

Go ahead and write to your nearest university and let them know that you think otherwise.


Here in the real world, we have the very same interferometer.


However, now we have two different formulas.


One features an area, the other one does not.


CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?



NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.


Your formula has AN AREA.

The SECOND FORMULA derived by the authors DOES NOT.


There is no rotation for that formula and no rotation in that system.
That velocity is the velocity of the detector/source (referred to as the object) along the path of the fibre optic conveyor.
That formula has no bearing on a rotating ring interferometer.
It is for a FOC. Do you understand the difference?

There is no difference whatsoever: both can measure the SAGNAC EFFECT.

If you now rotate the SEGMENT LIGHT PATH INTERFEROMETER, AS IN THE MGX OR RLGs, WHAT HAPPENS?

Exactly as Professor Yeh did.

Exactly as Michelson assumed it would happen.


You are talking nonsense again.

You are trolling this forum.


Your references SUFFER from the same defect exhibited by virtually all of the papers published since 1913.

Now, using PCMs, physicists are beginning to realize that there TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH.

Your reference ONLY DEALS WITH THE FORMULA WHICH HAS AN AREA.

It does not touch the other formula.


The formula being the same does not mean it is the same situation.

So you realize that THE FORMULAS ARE THE VERY SAME.

It is the same situation: both measure the SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is equivalent to the area of the fibre coil (or more technically the number of loops multiplied by the area) and the angular velocity.
It is not equivalent to a linear velocity.

Here is PROFESSOR RUYONG WANT TELLING YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

There is no area!

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf



The equation which expresses the relationship between interference fringes and time differences is F=dt[c/λ] (where dt = 4vL/c2).

This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path. Second, it gives us important implications: The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ where v is the speed of the moving arc segment AB (where R is the radius of the circular motion, Ω is the rotational rate).

If we increase the radius of the circular motion as shown in Fig. 6, the arc segment AB will approach a linear segment AB, the circular motion will approach the linear motion, the phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment will approach the phase-conjugate first-order experiment as shown in Fig. 4, and the phase shift is always φ = 4πvL/cλ.


The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ


Professor Wang multiplies the radius by the angular velocity, AND NOT THE RADIUS BY THE LENGTH, like you have catastrophically just done.


https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf


PAGE 4

The phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path [16], not the closed path like that in the most Sagnac experiments, makes this argument even more
serious.

Here is reference [16]:

[16] P. Yeh, I. McMichael, M. Khoshnevisan, Appl. Opt. 25 (1986) 1029.

EXACTLY MY REFERENCE!!!

Professor Wang acknowledges that there IS NO CLOSED LOOP, NO AREA, in Professor Yeh's experiment.


The phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path [16], not the closed path like that in the most Sagnac experiments, makes this argument even more serious.


And it gets even worse for you, just like I promised.

PAGE 5

This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path. Second, it gives us important implications as analyzed below. (Although in the experiment [16], the flexible fiber path was rotating and the other optical parts were not, in a similar experiment [17] all optical parts were rotating together.) The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ where v is the speed of the moving arc segment AB.

Here are references [16] and [17]:

[16] P. Yeh, I. McMichael, M. Khoshnevisan, Appl. Opt. 25 (1986) 1029.
[17] I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Opt. Lett. 11 (1986) 686.

Exactly my references!!!

First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path.


The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ


Professor Wang multiplies the radius by the angular velocity, AND NOT THE RADIUS BY THE LENGTH, like you have catastrophically just done.


The greatest expert in the world on FOC and PCMs, Professor Ruyong Wang does not multiply the radius by the length, on the contrary.

He multiplies the angular velocity by the radius, JUST LIKE I HAVE DONE.


Moreover, he plainly states that the interferometer used by Professor Yeh DOES NOT INCLUDE AN AREA AT ALL, it is a segment light path.



Now, I am going to use the 14pt font, perhaps you'll understand better.


Here is my formula:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

Let V₁ = R₁ x Ω

Let V₂ = R₂ x Ω

2(R₁ΩL₁ + R₂ΩL₂)/c²

=

2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c²

THIS IS THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc

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

MY FORMULA!


It is one the same formula.


See how easy it is to defeat you?

You are useless here.

stash, stop playing the concerned user.

Everyone remembers the BS you tried to pull on your readers:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201983#msg2201983

Once you try this kind of trolling, no one will ever take you seriously.

You are trying the same thing here.

You claimed that STR is true.

You then complained about the paper I referenced.

Fine.

That is why I took care of business with the GALAEV ETHER DRIFT experiments.

But you did admit that it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Again, STOP LYING!
Everyone can read my post and see that I did no such thing.

You are still continuing to avoid the issues raised and spamming the same lies.
Stop your spam. Deal with the issues raised. Until you do, YOU HAVE NOTHING!

Again:
Just focus on simple interferometer with normal mirrors and deal with the issues raised:
You need to refute my derivation which you have been unable to show any problem with.
You need to explain why you are finding the difference in time taken for a single beam of light, which corresponds to nothing in reality, and pretending it is the total time taken.
You need to explain why an interferometer which isn't rotating at all and instead is moving with uniform linear motion has a Sagnac shift, when symmetry demands it can't (and my formula says it can't, and the formula produced by so many people says it can't).

You also seem to have shown I do need to start with simple questions again and continue to repeat them until you can acutally answer them.

Lets start with this:
To find a total time from 2 times, t1, and t2, do you:
a) Add the 2 times together so the total time is t1+t2, or
b) Subtract one time from the other to find the difference in the time, such that the total time is t1-t2 (or potentially t2-t1, who knows).

Which one do you think it is?

stash, stop playing the concerned user.

Everyone remembers the BS you tried to pull on your readers:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201983#msg2201983

Once you try this kind of trolling, no one will ever take you seriously.

You are trying the same thing here.

You claimed that STR is true.

You then complained about the paper I referenced.

Fine.

That is why I took care of business with the GALAEV ETHER DRIFT experiments.

No, I complained about the paper you referenced from some one as "One of the best" in your words. Come to find out, he's a hack. So a hack is 'one of your best'. Which calls into question a lot of things.

I then ask you a direct question about one of your statements regarding your 'one of the best' and you deliberately sidestep it and move on to yet another foot of copy/pasta that is not relevant to the specific question at hand.

So you may ask your dear readers, why do you not address simple questions with simple answers? But instead perpetually overload a response with a foot of quotes, links, etc., with never addressing the direct, simple question at hand. This is why over at scienceforums.net the mods ultimately shut you down with:

"Moderator Note
Since the OP appears impervious to reason and genuine scientific rebuttal, this thread is closed."

Not because they were flummoxed by your overwhelming scientific prowess, but because they were frustrated by your overwhelming lack of self awareness. Literally only 2 people ever engage on a topic with you because of it. The tedium of obfuscation is the overwhelming on your part.

Simply answer a direct, simple question with a direct, simple answer instead of with a foot of the same copy/pasta, over, and over again:

By what means and how was it known to the author that the 'relatively small effect was much bellow the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth’?

And there's no trolling here. I'm just trying to get you to actually address a question rather than slather a bunch of other people's work all over the place to avoid it.

The truth hurts.

Everyone can read my post and see that I did no such thing.


You are exhibiting intellectual dishonesty.

Here is what you said yesterday, in full view:

Quote from: sandokhan on September 30, 2019, 10:10:26 PM

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

This is nothing more than pure semantics.
Have you even bothered reading that paper?
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply. Your formula is still wrong. The formula for the actual shift observed will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.

It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

Quote from: sandokhan on September 30, 2019, 10:10:26 PM

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.

YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED THAT YOUR FORMULA IS ACTUALLY THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.


You cannot change your opinions the very next day.


You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, by comparing two sides.


You derived a formula, namely this one:

dt = 4ωA/c^2


But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:


https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

The final formula is this:

dt = 4ωA/c^2


It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.


You are continuously trolling this forum, even though you have already lost everything here.


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 DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:






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


Now, I am going to use the 14pt font, perhaps you'll understand better.


Here is my formula:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

Let V₁ = R₁ x Ω

Let V₂ = R₂ x Ω

2(R₁ΩL₁ + R₂ΩL₂)/c²

=

2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c²

THIS IS THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc

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

MY FORMULA!


It is one the same formula.


See how easy it is to defeat you?

You are useless here.

stash, you are trolling this forum, while at the same time you preach to others about high moral standards.

Just like you did here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201983#msg2201983

You tried to claim that Toronto was under water.

You took that as far as you could, while claiming all the while that you are "concerned".

Just like you are doing now.

Your gig is over.

You can only do this ONCE, now you've blown your cover already.

If you don't like Dr. Agathangelidis' paper, there is nothing else I can do for you on the subject.

I then demolished your STR hypothesis using the GALAEV ether drift experiments.

Very easy.

The folks over at the scienceforums will say anything to fool their readers, the fact that you play along says quite a lot.

They had no answers to provide once I clearly showed them that there were two formulas for the SAGNAC EFFECT.

You are exhibiting intellectual dishonesty.

Again, projecting will not save you.

Here is what you said yesterday, in full view:
It is saying

Again, do you understand English?
That is not me admitting that it is, that is me saying that that article is saying something.

As an easier example, if I say:
"you are saying Earth is flat"
that is not me admitting Earth is flat. That is simply me stating that you say Earth is flat. It is "admitting" that you say Earth is flat.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

The same applies to your claims about Stash. He wasn't saying Toronto was under water, he was saying that if was flat, Toronto would need to be under water, as the water level in the photo is in line with the Toronto skyline, so either the water curves down before reaching Toronto (i.e. Earth is round) or Toronto is under water.

Again, that is not a difficult concept to grasp, but you completely misrepresent it.

It would be like me taking this quote of yours:

here is what you did:

Quote from: JackBlack on November 20, 2018, 02:15:09 PM

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l₁/(c - v₁)+l₂/(c + v₂)-l₁/(c + v₁)-l₂/(c - v₂)
=l₁/(c - v₁)-l₁/(c + v₁)+l₂/(c + v₂)-l₂/(c - v₂)
=l₁(c + v₁-c + v₁)/(c² - v₁²)+l₂(c - v₂-c - v₂)/(c² - v₂²)
=2*l₁v₁/(c² - v₁²)-2*l₂v₂/(c² - v₂²)

Where you attack the formula I derive, and claim that that is you admitting that the formula for the Sagnac effect is given by:
dt = 2*l₁v₁/(c² - v₁²)-2*l₂v₂/(c² - v₂

You really make me wonder what your problem is. Do you just seriously not understand English and thus don't understand what is being said and what the papers are saying? Do you understand English but not understand the science involved and thus say what you think, which ends up being completely wrong?
Or do you understand it all and know what you are saying is wrong?

See how easy it is to defeat you?

As I said, it seems impossible for you to defeat me. All you seem to be able to do is just repeatedly spam nonsense.

If you want to try defeating me then you need to deal with the issues raised.
Start by trying to answer the very simple question:
To find a total time from 2 times, t1, and t2, do you:
a) Add the 2 times together so the total time is t1+t2, or
b) Subtract one time from the other to find the difference in the time, such that the total time is t1-t2 (or potentially t2-t1, who knows).

Which one do you think it is?

You cannot use semantics to save face.

Here are your very own words:

Quote from: sandokhan on September 30, 2019, 10:10:26 PM

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

This is nothing more than pure semantics.
Have you even bothered reading that paper?
That paper of yours claims that this is not actually the Sagnac effect and instead is just the Coriolis effect. It is not saying that the Sagnac effect is something different. It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply. Your formula is still wrong. The formula for the actual shift observed will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.

It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

Quote from: sandokhan on September 30, 2019, 10:10:26 PM

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

It is saying what is known as the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

If you want to call it the Coriolis effect instead, then go ahead, but the same arguments apply.

YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED THAT YOUR FORMULA IS ACTUALLY THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.


Here is my formula:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

Let V₁ = R₁ x Ω

Let V₂ = R₂ x Ω

2(R₁ΩL₁ + R₂ΩL₂)/c²

=

2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c²

THIS IS THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc

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

MY FORMULA!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351 (full derivation)


It is one and the very same formula.


It is extremely easy to defeat you.

You cannot use semantics to save face.

Considering you are blatantly lying about what I said, I think I can, although I don't need to save face, as it is still quite clear that you are lying even in your posts.

Now again, answer the question, if you can't, it shows you have no case:
To find a total time from 2 times, t1, and t2, do you:
a) Add the 2 times together so the total time is t1+t2, or
b) Subtract one time from the other to find the difference in the time, such that the total time is t1-t2 (or potentially t2-t1, who knows).

Which one do you think it is?

My derivation is in full view right here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

Here is the final product:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

Let V₁ = R₁ x Ω

Let V₂ = R₂ x Ω

2(R₁ΩL₁ + R₂ΩL₂)/c²

=

2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c²

THIS IS THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/λc

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

MY FORMULA!


It is one and the very same formula.


It is exceedingly  easy to defeat you.

My derivation is in full view right here:

And I have pointed out exactly why it is wrong, which you ignored.
The first part is this question which you seem unwilling to answer.
Is it because you know it will show you to be wrong?

Again:
To find a total time from 2 times, t1, and t2, do you:
a) Add the 2 times together so the total time is t1+t2, or
b) Subtract one time from the other to find the difference in the time, such that the total time is t1-t2 (or potentially t2-t1, who knows).

Which one do you think it is?

If you can't answer that, you have no case.

MY FORMULA!

By now we all know what your formula is, there's no need to post 100 times a day.

In order to bring this discussion forward, it would be good if you could answer Jack's questions in a simple manner. As it stands the discussion is stuck in a loop of you posting the same formulas over and over.

By now we all know what your formula

Whose alt are you?

It seems that your client (since you are acting here as his lawyer) does not. Both of you are trolling this forum.

Are you my friend? Of course not. Then, you are kind of rude to tell me how I should write my own messages.

I have answered each and every question possible: no one else would show such courtesy on any other forum.


The main issue is this: my formula coincides exactly with the formula derived by Professor Yeh.


The requests made here have already been addressed: my derivation is in full view for everyone here.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351


Here is Professor Yeh's final formula:



I derived/obtained THE VERY SAME FORMULA:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

Let V₁ = R₁ x Ω

Let V₂ = R₂ x Ω

2(R₁ΩL₁ + R₂ΩL₂)/c²

=

2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c²


See how easy it is to utterly defeat you? All it takes is a single formula, certainly the most important formula in physics today.

By now we all know what your formula

Whose alt are you?

Please don't start with the alt paranoia. I have just this one user.

Anyone reading this thread has seen your formula several times, it gets old.

It was a suggestion. If you don't like it, then by all means go ahead and post your formula a few more times.

I have just this one user.

You do?

And yet appear here acting as jackblack's appointed lawyer?

If you don't like it, then by all means go ahead and post your formula a few more times.

Again, you are committing an act of what could be interpreted as rudeness: have I ever told you how you should write your messages?

Just take a look at the trolling perpetrated by your friends, whom you are defending.

Imagine if YOU had a formula, beautifully derived, which coincides exactly with the formula published in the Journal of Optics Letters by one of the top physicists in the world.

And someone else would make trolling requests and avoid to acknowledge that the formula is actually correct.

No other forum would alllow jackblack's despicable trolling as it is allowed right here.

I have just this one user.

You do?

And yet appear here acting as jackblack's appointed lawyer?

If you don't like it, then by all means go ahead and post your formula a few more times.

Again, you are committing an act of what could be interpreted as rudeness: have I ever told you how you should write your messages?

Just take a look at the trolling perpetrated by your friends, whom you are defending.

Imagine if YOU had a formula, beautifully derived, which coincides exactly with the formula published in the Journal of Optics Letters by one of the top physicists in the world.

And someone else would make trolling requests and avoid to acknowledge that the formula is actually correct.

No other forum would alllow jackblack's despicable trolling as it is allowed right here.

I understand you are very proud of your formula and that's great. Sometimes it's difficult to convince other people even if you are 100% right, in those cases approaching the problem from a different angle might help. Sometimes you are 100% sure you are right, but in the end it turns out you were wrong, happens to everyone.

Let me ask you this: Has any known physicist ever agreed that your derivation is correct? Or someone with a PhD in Physics?

And please don't answer the paper agrees with you, I mean a real person telling you the derivation is correct.

Has any known physicist ever agreed that your derivation is correct? Or someone with a PhD in Physics?

Yes.

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

He derives a SAGNAC EFFECT formula for an interferometer which has two unequal sides (thus, resulting in two velocities for the light beams as well).

Here is the 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

It coincides exactly with my formula.

Which means I am right.