On Sandokhan definitions of the Sagnac and Coriolis Effects

The first shill has been confined to the AR.

The second shill can no longer use trolling, stalling, spamming to escape the final conclusion: my formula is correct.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2207193#msg2207193


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)


They derive TWO FORMULAS for the same phenomenon.


The first one is:

Δt = 4Aω/c^2

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/c^2


What is the corresponding formula for the Michelson-Gale interferometer which does not display an area and which is proportional to the velocity of the light beams?

Obviously, we now have to deal with two velocities for each side of the interferometer, v1 and v2, not to mention the two different lengths of each side.


Tartaglia and Ruggiero derived TWO formulas for the same phenomenon, but which obviously carry two very different physical and mathematical characteristics: one is proportional to the area of the interferometer, the other one is not.


Here, then, is the correct derivation of the SECOND FORMULA, which does not feature an area, for the Michelson-Gale interferometer:

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






I have just proven that the TRUE SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA DOES NOT FEATURE AN AREA.


Only the CORIOLIS EFFECT formulas has an area incorporated into the equation.


You derived the following formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2


In order to derive this formula, you compared two sides, not two loops, as required by the definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT.


When you have the centre of the interferometer aligned with the centre of rotation, you don't change sign with direction. Instead you just add up the times.

Completely wrong.

In fact, I posted the derivation from the mathpages to show you how wrong you are:




THEY SUBSTRACT THE TIMES.


Can everyone understand the mechanism?

Opposite directions, therefore WE SUBSTRACT THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME TRAVEL.

Moreover, we are dealing with TWO LOOPS.

Can everyone understand that the differences in time travel have to be substracted?

This is the correct way to derive the Sagnac formula:

Sagnac phase component for the clockwise path:

2πR(1/(c - v))

Sagnac phase component for the counterclockwise path:

-2πR(1/(c + v))

The continuous clockwise loop has a positive sign +

The continuous counterclockwise loop has a negative sign -

Good.

That is, if we want to find out the difference in travel times (opposite directions) we must substract them.


So, on the most important part of your messages, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!




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.

Let us remember that now we are dealing with DIFFERENT VELOCITIES for each arm, and DIFFERENT LENGTHS of each arm, a situation a bit more complex than the previous case analyzed here.


We need to designate the TWO LOOPS, as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:

Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.

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

A single continuous pulse A > B > C > D > A, while the other one, A > D > C > B > A is in the opposite direction, and has the negative sign.


So, for the first loop, the clockwise path, the A > D > C > B > A path, we have to deal with beams which are traveling IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, that is, in order to find out the total time travel we need to substract the time differences, just like we did the first time: in effect we are adding two transit times, one of which is traveling in a opposite direction to the first, hence the opposite signs.

We substracted the time differences the first time around for the interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometric center.

Now, we have a loop consisting of two different paths, which travel in opposite directions.

Therefore, to get the TOTAL TIME DIFFERENCE FOR THE CLOCKWISE PATH, we substract the time differences: again, in effect we are adding the transit times, but since one of them has an opposite direction, it will have a different sign than the first transit time, just like in the first example of the Sagnac interferometer.

Very simple, and at the same time we are dealing with a LOOP, as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.

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

l₁/(c - v₁)

-l₂/(c + v₂)

Now, we do the same thing for the counterclockwise path, the A > B > C > D > A path:

l₂/(c - v₂)

-l₁/(c + v₁)


For the single continuous clockwise path we now have the total time difference:

l₁/(c - v₁) - l₂/(c + v₂)


For the single continuous counterclockwise path we have the total difference:

l₂/(c - v₂) - l₁/(c + v₁)


TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

If we change the sign of the second term/phase component to +, that is:

l₁/(c - v₁)

l₂/(c + v₂)

then, we no longer have a LOOP, and moreover we are using the wrong sign for the direction of the second transit time; each transit time has a different direction, hence we must use opposite signs to correctly designate them in our analysis.

Let us remember the very defintion of the Sagnac effect: two loops are required to properly derive the formula.


Now, to obtain the final answer, WE SUBSTRACT THE TOTAL TIME DIFFERENCES FOR EACH PATH, since we are dealing with a counterclockwise path and a clockwise path, if we want the time phase, we need to substract the total time differences for each LOOP. Each loop has a different direction, as such it must have a different sign assigned to it.

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


You are out of options: no more trolling, spamming from you.

Professors Tartaglia and Ruggiero have derived TWO FORMULAS, one features an area, the other does not.

I was able, for the first time in history, to derive the corresponding SECOND formula for the Michelson-Gale experiment.


Remember: you MUST address the fact that Tartaglia and Ruggiero derived the SAGNAC EFFECT formula WITHOUT AN AREA.

NO area at all!

The first shill has been confined to the AR.

The second shill can no longer use trolling, stalling, spamming to escape the final conclusion: my formula is correct.

But you are the one who is repeatedly trolling, stalling and spamming.

When you first brought up your claims regarding the Sagnac effect you fully accepted that the formula was 4*A*omega/c^2, and accepted that it applied to any interferometer, but claimed that the area used was the area of the "orbit", such that the orbital Sagnac was based on the area of Earth's orbit around the sun, while for Earth's rotation it would be the area or a circle centred on Earth's axis and passing through the interferometer.
But you had that argument completely refuted and I provided a derivation from first principles for an annular interferometer showing it was the area of the interferometer which mattered, not the orbit.
You were completely unable to refute that and spammed a bunch more of baseless assertions before running away.

You then came up with a few false derivations which were also refuted.
For example, you brought in fibre optic conveyors, which while having a similar origin, are fundamentally different.
The apparatus no longer moves as one, it moves relative to itself.
It is irrelevant to the discussion on the Sagnac effect for a simple ring interferometer.

It also doesn't show what you claim.
The shift is not proportional to some fictitious absolute velocity of the interferometer. It is proportional to the velocity of the source/detector relative to the conveyor.
So it doesn't prove what you are claiming at all.
Another important distinction is that it uses the entire length, not just the length of 2 arms.
So no, it doesn't apply.

You have been completely unable to justify your derivation at all. As such it is proof of nothing. It remains a pile of refuted garbage.

Meanwhile, you have been completely unable to refute my derivation at all (either of them).

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.

Not quite. It is the velocity, not of the light beams, but of the source/detector relative to the conveyor.
There is no radius here. There is no rotation, except where the conveyor turns a corner.

A fibre optic conveyor, while similar to a Sagnac interferometer, is not one. Its formula is not that for the Sagnac effect.

In order to derive this formula, you compared two sides, not two loops, as required by the definition of the SAGNAC EFFECT.

No, that would be what you have repeatedly done.
I have compared 2 loops (really just the one loop, with 2 beams of light going in different directions).
I added up the time taken for each loop to complete, and then I found the difference between those 2 times, to find the shift.
Instead, you looked at the time taken for a beam of light to traverse each arm and found the difference in those times, not corresponding to anything in reality.

When you have the centre of the interferometer aligned with the centre of rotation, you don't change sign with direction. Instead you just add up the times.
Completely wrong.

No, completely true.
You take the time taken to traverse each tiny section of the arm and add them all up to find the total time taken to traverse the loop.
But now you want to throw that out the window and find some difference in this time which makes no sense at all.

THEY SUBSTRACT THE TIMES.

For the 2 different counterpropogating beams, not for the same beam.
For a single beam they add up the time.

This matches what I did.
We have one beam which traverses the loop in one direction. The time taken to traverse the arms of interest are the following:
l₁/(c - v₁)
l₂/(c + v₂)
Notice the difference in sign of the velocity term as in one case the light is moving with the arm, while in the other it is moving against it.
This means for this beam of light, the total time (that we care about) is:
l₁/(c - v₁) + l₂/(c + v₂).

Likewise we do the same for the other BEAM OF LIGHT and end up with:
l₂/(c - v₂) + l₁/(c + v₁).

Note: these correspond to the time taken for the clockwise path and counterclockwise path for a simple ring interferometer:
2πR(1/(c - v))
2πR(1/(c + v))

Notice that they add up the single light path.
They don't do something like this:
"Well for half of the path it goes in one direction, so it has a Sagnac phase component of πR(1/(c - v)), but then for the other half it goes in the opposite direction so it has a phase component of -πR(1/(c - v)), giving us a total of 0."

Now, we find the difference in time between the light beams to find the time shift at the detector. This is where the difference comes in. It is the difference in time for the 2 beams of light:
dt=l₁/(c - v₁) + l₂/(c + v₂) - (l₂/(c - v₂) + l₁/(c + v₁))
=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 l₁ v₁/(c² - v₁²) - 2 l₂ v₂/(c² - v₂²)
Then when you note v is tiny compared to c, this simplifies to:
dt=2 l₁ v₁/c² - 2 l₂ v₂/c²
2(l₁ v₁ - l₂ v₂)/c²

Just like I have proven countless times.
And when you note that this needs to be an annular interferometer for the other arms to not matter, this results in the same old formula:
dt=4Aw/c^2

Meanwhile you are subtracting the times for a single beam which makes no sense and corresponds to nothing in reality.

Opposite directions, therefore WE SUBSTRACT THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME TRAVEL.

No, 2 different beams which produce an interference pattern, so we find the difference in time taken for the beams. We don't find a difference in time taken for a single beam to traverse the different arms as that corresponds to nothing in reality.

So, for the first loop, the clockwise path, the A > D > C > B > A path, we have to deal with beams which are traveling IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, that is, in order to find out the total time travel we need to substract the time differences

Again, THIS MAKES NO SENSE!
Again, if you have someone who can run at a speed of c, who wants to run back and forth down a track of length l, is the time required:
t1=l/c+l/c, where we don't change the sign for opposite spatial directions, as both paths move forwards in time, or is it:
t2=l/c-l/c, where we change the sign for opposite spatial directions, meaning regardless of how long the path is it takes no time to run back and forth down it because you magically go backwards in time when you go backwards down the path?

According to your nonsense, you find the difference and can end up with no time taken at all.
According to almost everyone, you add the times together to find the total time.
Do you understand what a total is? It is what you get when you add up the components. It is not a difference.

For any individual light path you add the time taken for it to traverse the individual components to find the total time taken.
The only time you would subtract is if the light beam magically travels backwards in time.

This is why your derivation amounts to nothing more than pure bovine excrement.
Because you are trying to find a total time by finding a difference in time taken.
Do you not realise that they are vastly different things?

I was able, for the first time in history, to derive the corresponding SECOND formula for the Michelson-Gale experiment.

And have you considered that that the reason for that is because you have made a massive mistake? A mistake which has been pointed out to you countless times, which you have repeatedly ignored?

And again, your formula can be shown to be pure nonsense by also considering what happens with a rectangular interferometer travelling in uniform linear motion (i.e. without any rotation at all).
According to simple symmetry the 2 light paths will be equivalent and thus there will be no shift as neither beam of light can get ahead of the other.
i.e. the light travelling clockwise along arm 1 will be the same as the light travelling counterclockwise along arm 3, and so on for all the other arms. This means the total shift must be 0.
My formula indicates the following:
dt=2(l v - l v)/c² = 0.
Meanwhile your nonsense indicates the following:
2(l v + l v)/c² = 2 l v / c²

This is a massive problem for you.
Your formula produces an incorrect result in one of the simplest cases.
This shows your formula is nonsense.

So no, you haven't made some historic break through. You have just made a massive mistake.

This is what you actually need to deal with. To summarise:
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).

And these are all problems which have been pointed out to you before which you have chosen to ignore.

We are left now with jackblack's trolling.

Just take a look at this:

A fibre optic conveyor, while similar to a Sagnac interferometer, is not one. Its formula is not that for the Sagnac effect.

Here is the reference, published in one of the most respected journals:


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)

The section itself is entitled SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT ROTATION:





I now ask the admin and the mods: how would you deal with something like this, where a user REFUSES to accept reality and scientific references which obviously negate his statement?


jackblack is REFUSING to accept the plain scientific facts referenced in a peer-reviewed paper.


Imagine this: the very title of the paper and of the particular section mentions the SAGNAC EFFECT, yet jackblack says, "no".


How is this a debate?


Is this not trolling, to DEFY and NEGATE the obvious evidence presented?


jackblack is refusing to accept reality, and this means he has certain psychological problems which are not any of our business to cure here.


He is trolling in plain view this forum, refusing to accept the clear evidence presented in front of him.



Plus the usual vindictivness.

It remains a pile of refuted garbage.

This is why your derivation amounts to nothing more than pure bovine excrement.

jackblack has derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Here is the proof:


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



jackblack is refusing to accept defeat and to accept that his formula is clearly described as the CORIOLIS EFFECT.


Yet, he is allowed to troll this forum, again and again.


He is not here to debate at all, but only to NEGATE.


This is where any debate would stop: clearly I have proven that the formula derived by jackblack is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

My reference clearly shows this to be true.

Yet, this user is refusing to accept reality.


The true SAGNAC EFFECT does not feature an area.

Here is the proof:


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)





I have just proven, using a well-known reference, that the SAGNAC EFFECT formula does not and cannot include the area of the interferometer.


I have just proven, using another reference, that jackblack's formula is the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation.


But he won't accept these plain scientific facts.

jackblack dismisses the references as "pure garbage".

Each and every point of this message has been thoroughly addressed, again and again, for the past months, yet he won't listen and continues to spam this forum with his unaltered vindictivness.


This means that he is TROLLING AND SPAMMING this forum.

We are left now with jackblack's trolling.

How about you stop with the insults and instead try to deal with the issues raised?

I now ask the admin and the mods: how would you deal with something like this, where a user REFUSES to accept reality and scientific references which obviously negate his statement?

This is a site built upon the rejection of accepted science.
It rejected the accepted science of Earth being round and rotating and orbiting the sun.
Why should rejecting your interpretation of science be a problem?

Do you want to just accept what mainstream science says?
That means accepting Earth is a round, rotating planet which orbits the sun, and that the sagnac effect for a simple ring interferometer is given by 4Aw/c^2, regardless of where the centre of rotation is.

So do you really want that? Or do you want to try justifying claims without appealing to what mainstream science says?

But don't worry, it isn't only me that rejects that. Here is a quote from someone you hold in very high regards defining the Sagnac effect (colouring and bolding mine):

HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT:
Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.

A similar (identical) quote can be found in the following posts:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78424.msg2118464#msg2118464
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82968.msg2207198#msg2207198
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79931.msg2198088#msg2198088

You yourself have stated quite clearly that the definition of the Sagnac effect requires that the interferometer is rotating.
Notice how that does not include an fibre optic conveyor?
Notice how that goes directly against the paper you cite.
You are literally arguing with yourself.

Yes, the Sagnac effect can be generalised to a fibre optic conveyor or a similar system, but that is not what is being discussed here. We are not discussing a stationary light path with a source/detector moving along this path, with the length of the light path being the only length we care about and the velocity of the source/detector along the light path being the only velocity we care about (yes, notice how this has just one velocity and one length, and in this case that is actually critical to how it works. The derivation relies upon it). We are discussing a rotating light path, something significantly different.

How is this a debate?

You are correct, it isn't debate. It is trolling.
You repeatedly ignore what I say.
You repeatedly ignore the massive issues I raise with your derivation and your claims.
Instead you just spam the same nonsense and argue with yourself.

Notice how no where in your post do you deal with the simple points I raised?

Again, simple symmetry demands that for a rectangular interferometer moving at a constant speed with uniform linear motion, such that l1=l2 and v1=v2, there can be NO Sagnac shift. The 2 paths are indistinguishable and thus both beams take the same time to transit the loop and there is no shift.
My formula correctly predicts no shift.
Your formula falsely predicts a shift.
This is a massive problem for your formula and shows that it cannot be correct.


Again, when finding the Sagnac shift based upon a time difference, the important value to calculate is the difference in time taken for the 2 light paths.
If there is not a simple value for the time for a light path it can be constructed by adding the individual components, but it still adds the time taken.
This is what my derivation does, adding up the time taken for the beam of light to traverse the relevant arms of the interferometer, and the finding the difference in time taken for the 2 beams of light.
Your "derivation" meanwhile finds the difference in time taken for a single beam of light to traverse the 2 arms, corresponding to absolutely nothing in reality.

Now, care to address the issues raised?

You are continuously trolling this forum.

You are setting yourself up against mainstream science.

You are refusing to accept respected, peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Here is what you said earlier:

A fibre optic conveyor, while similar to a Sagnac interferometer, is not one. Its formula is not that for the Sagnac effect.

A sensible person would immediately write to the American Physics Journal, perhaps even to the authors of the paper, that you do not agree with the definition and proof they published.

Then see what kind of a response you'd get back.


You are telling your readers, the FE, the RE, to mainstream science, that you do not accept what was published, and it doesn't work like that.

Here you will have to accept your defeat: if you do not want to do that, you are free to visit another forum, or do something else in your life.

By having refused to accept a peer-reviewed paper, published in a mainstream scientific journal, you are thereby trolling this forum.

Only a troll would refuse to accept reality.


You seem not to understand what is going on.

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)

The section itself is entitled SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT ROTATION:




The SAGNAC EFFECT is a change in propagation time for light going in a closed path.

That closed path/interferometer can then be rotated, as in the Michelson-Gale experiment.

That is the basic formula derived by the authors who clearly spell out, even for you, what is going on: the paper is called The Sagnac Effect and Pure Geometry.


Most importantly is the following fact:

NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.

Your formula, by contrast, has an area:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This formula, featuring an area, 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


Since you cannot accept this fact, you have been trolling for the past months this forum.

No more.


Either you accept that the SAGNAC EFFECT formula does not include the area, or leave.


My formula:



The same formula was derived by Professor Yeh:

Using a phase-conjugate mirror, for the first time in 1986, Professor Yeh was able to derive the TRUE SAGNAC FORMULA which is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.




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.

Here is the derivation of my formula, using TWO LOOPS:

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

Here is the final formula:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

My formula is confirmed at the highest possible scientific level, having been published in the best OPTICS journal in the world, Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

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.


You are trolling this forum jackblack.


Your are ignoring the results published in well-respected journals, thus you are ignoring the very meaning of a debate on this forum.

If you have in an issue with the results published by these distinguished authors, you know what to do: please write to those journals and let them know of your opinion.

Here, your total defiance of basic rules will get you a well-deserved suspension.

You are continuously trolling this forum.

Projecting and repeating the same spam wont help you.

Do you want to debate, or preach?
If the former, address the objections that have been raised against your claims:
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).

Do I need to start with simple questions again?

If so, see if you can answer this one:
If we take a rectangular interferometer and have it undergo uniform linear motion, with the entire interferometer moving as one, should we expect any Sagnac phase shift?
If so, which beam is faster, the clockwise beam or the counter clockwise beam?

Also, if you would like to appeal to scientific papers so much, how about this one:
https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/38/1/015301

Some key points from it:
The Sagnac phase shift is given by this formula:

Note that this is different from mine for a few reasons.
Firstly, it is focusing on the phase of the wave not the time shift.
To go from a time shift to the phase, you need to multiply the time by 2*pi*c/lambda (note: This isn't just me saying you multiply by that, the paper states it as well:).
The other distinction is that they are using an interferometer with multiple loops and thus multiplying by the number of loops (N).

As such, this is equivalent to my formula.
So this reference agrees with me, that the phase shift is given by:
dt=4*A*w/c^2.

They also point out that this can be derived by integrating the individual parts over a loop, showing that there is nothing wrong with one of my earlier derivations (which produces an identical result) that first found the phase shift for the individual arms and then added those phase shifts together.

But perhaps the best part is this:

The results confirmed that the interference phase shift is indifferent to the position of the rotation axis relative to the interferometer area principal axis.

Do you know what that means?
If 4*A*w/c^2 is the Sagnac shift for an interferometer, that is it, regardless of where it is positioned. It doesn't matter if it rotates about it's centre, or a point off centre in the ring, or a point completely outside the ring. It's shift will remain as 4*A*w/c^2.

i.e. I am correct.

So are you going to accept mainstream science?
Will you accept respected, peer-reviewed scientific papers?
Will you accept a peer-reviewed paper, published in a mainstream scientific journal?
Otherwise, in your own words:

By having refused to accept a peer-reviewed paper, published in a mainstream scientific journal, you are thereby trolling this forum.

So what will it be?

You are barking up the wrong tree.

My formula coincides exactly with the formula derived by Professor Yeh.

This formula has been published in the Journal of Optics Letters, and it is used by the US NAVAL RESEARCH OFFICE, Physics Division.

So, if you have a problem with that, please write to the Journal of Optics Letters.


The SAGNAC EFFECT does not feature an area.

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)




NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.

Your formula, by contrast, has an area:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This formula, featuring an area, 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


You either accept these published results or you don't.

If you do not want to accept them, you have two basic choices: write to the journals and let them know of your learned opinion, or leave this forum.

If you continue on this path here, it will be assumed that you are trolling this forum.


If we take a rectangular interferometer and have it undergo uniform linear motion, with the entire interferometer moving as one, should we expect any Sagnac phase shift?

This precise context has been described right here in the very paper posted today:

https://web.infn.it/GINGER/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/sagnac_AJP.pdf (pages 5-6)

This means that you didn't even read the paper, more clear signs that you are trolling this forum.

Also, if you would like to appeal to scientific papers so much, how about this one:
https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/38/1/015301

The authors of that paper have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Their final formula coincides with your formula and FEATURES AN AREA.

The true Sagnac effect does not have an area at all.

The paper I referenced, written by two of the greatest experts in the world in the field, makes this quite clear.

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)


They derive TWO FORMULAS for the same phenomenon.


The first one is:

Δt = 4Aω/c^2

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/c^2


What is the corresponding formula for the Michelson-Gale interferometer which does not display an area and which is proportional to the velocity of the light beams?

Obviously, we now have to deal with two velocities for each side of the interferometer, v1 and v2, not to mention the two different lengths of each side.


Tartaglia and Ruggiero derived TWO formulas for the same phenomenon, but which obviously carry two very different physical and mathematical characteristics: one is proportional to the area of the interferometer, the other one is not.


Here, then, is the correct derivation of the SECOND FORMULA, which does not feature an area, for the Michelson-Gale interferometer:

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





Go ahead and write to those journals, let them know of your opinion, and then come back here in several months.

Otherwise, you presence here will be taken as trolling this forum.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Again, projection wont help you.

My formula coincides exactly with the formula derived by Professor Yeh.

No, it is nothing like it.
The formula you are appealing to is for a fibre optic conveyor where the source/detector moves relative to the light path. It does not apply to a rotating ring interferometer.
Also note that Professor Yeh's formula contains only a single length and a single velocity, not the 2 you have.

What you are appealing to does not apply to what we are discussing.
As such, I have no need to write to any of them regarding the Sagnac effect.

Once we deal with an interferometer we can move on to the generalised Sagnac effect for a FOC.

Now can you address the several issues raised regarding this issue?
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).

I notice you are just completely ignoring them and just reposting the same spam.

Do I need to start with simple questions again?

If so, see if you can answer this one:
If we take a rectangular interferometer and have it undergo uniform linear motion, with the entire interferometer moving as one, should we expect any Sagnac phase shift?
If so, which beam is faster, the clockwise beam or the counter clockwise beam?

This precise context has been described right here in the very paper posted today:
https://web.infn.it/GINGER/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/sagnac_AJP.pdf (pages 5-6)

No, it hasn't.
As I pointed out before, this has the detector/source move relative to the ring.
It is not the entire interferometer moving as one.
This is perhaps shown most clearly in figure 7.
With this you see the path remain fixed, while the source/detector (labelled the observer) moves.
It even explicitly states that the observer is in 2 positions relative to the ring, with one position at the start when the light is sent and the other at the end when the light is received.
It also shows the path of the light and how the light does not completely traverse the ring.

So no, this is a FOC where the source/detector moves relative to the light path. It is not a simple ring interferometer where the interferometer moves as one with uniform linear motion.

Ignoring what the paper shows to try and avoid answering questions/addressing massive problems with your claims will not help you.

Also note, the paper I used does apply.
It is referring to a ring interferometer.
It shows and states quite explicitly that it doesn't matter where the centre of rotation is, the shift will be the same and it is proportional to the area and angular velocity.

The authors of that paper have derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

No, they didn't.
Read the paper.
No where in it does it mention the Coriolis effect.
You are rejecting a peer-reviewed paper, published in a mainstream scientific journal, all because it shows you are wrong.

So how shall I put this? How about I just use your words again:

You either accept these published results or you don't.
If you do not want to accept them, you have two basic choices: write to the journals and let them know of your learned opinion, or leave this forum.
If you continue on this path here, it will be assumed that you are trolling this forum.
Go ahead and write to those journals, let them know of your opinion, and then come back here in several months.
Otherwise, you presence here will be taken as trolling this forum.

So the decision is yours.
Accept the scientific paper, or stop appealing to them and defend your claims yourself.

You are having an emotional breakdown and this is not the place to cure it.

In such a distressed state, you are not thinking clearly at all.

Also note that Professor Yeh's formula contains only a single length and a single velocity, not the 2 you have.




This is pure trolling on your part.

You have just stated that Professor Yeh's formula contains "only a single length and a single velocity".

But there are TWO LENGTHS, AND THUS TWO VELOCITIES in the formula.

Clearly spelled out in front of you.


Can everyone see what is going here?

Since he cannot accept defeat, jackblack is resorting to the same bullshitting methods that rabinoz used as well.


How can anyone call a formula which evidently has two velocities incorporated into the final equation, as a formula which has "only one velocity"?


Of course the paper referenced by you does not mention the CORIOLIS EFFECT, since Dr. Eyal Schwartz does not understand the issues involved regarding the fact that the SAGNAC EFFECT does not feature an area.

His formula, as does yours, features AN AREA.


If you have an area, then you got the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here is the proof:


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


You cannot have a single formula for two different phenomena.

Obviously, the SAGNAC EFFECT must have a different formula which does not feature an area.

And this I have proved right here:

The SAGNAC EFFECT does not feature an area.

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)





NOTE TO THE MODS/ADMIN:

What are we going to do with this user? He is trolling this forum unabated, using basic spamming as his main instrument of "debating".

He has just been shown where he went wrong, yet he will have none of it.

He is describing a formula which has two velocities, as a formula which has only one velocity.

Is this not trolling at its worst?

You are having an emotional breakdown and this is not the place to cure it.

In such a distressed state, you are not thinking clearly at all.

Also note that Professor Yeh's formula contains only a single length and a single velocity, not the 2 you have.




This is pure trolling on your part.

You have just stated that Professor Yeh's formula contains "only a single length and a single velocity".

But there are TWO LENGTHS, AND THUS TWO VELOCITIES in the formula.

Clearly spelled out in front of you.

As did Professor Yeh's

“R1,2 and L1,2 are the lengths and radii of the fiber loops”

You are having an emotional breakdown and this is not the place to cure it.

Again, projecting will not help you.

You need to deal with the issues raised.

But there are TWO LENGTHS, AND THUS TWO VELOCITIES in the formula.

My bad, I thought you were referring to their work on the FOC, not PCMs, which are no relevance to our discussion.

But you are wrong again. There is no velocity in that formula. Instead there is an angular velocity.
Also note that with the schematic shown, the 2 loops are not concentric and there is no stated requirement for the loops be aligned with the axis of rotation.
As a result, this angular velocity cannot be converted into 2 tangential velocities. Instead, each point on each loop would have their own velocities. So it would be an infinite number, not 2.
You can convert it to a tangential speed if you have the 2 loops being concentric and have the centre match the axis of rotation, but then you have a single speed, not to.

So no matter how you try and pretend, it is not 2 velocities.
So it still contradicts your claim.

Can everyone see what is going here?

I'm sure most people can.

Since you cannot accept defeat, you are resorting to the same bullshitting methods that you used as well.
You are rejecting accepted scientific papers published in mainstream journals.
You have been refuted and are unable to rationally respond to the objections raised.

How can anyone call a formula which evidently has a single angular velocity for 2 loops incorporated into the final equation, as a formula which has "two velocities"?

Of course the paper referenced by you does not mention the CORIOLIS EFFECT, since Dr. Eyal Schwartz does not understand the issues involved regarding the fact that the SAGNAC EFFECT does not feature an area.

Then like you said:

You either accept these published results or you don't.
If you do not want to accept them, you have two basic choices: write to the journals and let them know of your learned opinion, or leave this forum.
If you continue on this path here, it will be assumed that you are trolling this forum.
Go ahead and write to those journals, let them know of your opinion, and then come back here in several months.
Otherwise, you presence here will be taken as trolling this forum.

So are you going to accept their result? Or will you right to them to object?

The simple reality is that he experimentally measured what the actual shift is.
What you call it is irrelevant.
What the ultimate cause is is irrelevant.
The simple fact is that this is the shift which is observed in reality for a rotating interferometer and as clearly shown by this paper, it doesn't matter where the centre of rotation is.

So like you said, accept the published scientific work, or go write to the paper and complain.


Or, you can stop with those pathetic appeals to authority and actually discuss the issues raised.
Again:
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).

Do I need to start with simple questions again?

If so, see if you can answer this one (and answer it correctly, without misrepresenting a FOC where the source/detector moves relative to the ring as the entire thing moving as one):
If we take a rectangular interferometer and have it undergo uniform linear motion, with the entire interferometer moving as one, should we expect any Sagnac phase shift?
If so, which beam is faster, the clockwise beam or the counter clockwise beam?

You are trolling, yet again, this forum.

You are not addressing the main issues here.

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


Very simple, yet you are trolling on a daily basis, failing to understand this very easy to understand point.


At this point in time, there is nothing to discuss here, nothing about the SAGNAC EFFECT: I have just proven that your formula is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation.


Have you forgotten the definition of linear velocity?

v = RΩ

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

Both Professor Yeh and myself have derived the SAME FORMULA.


You are trying to deflect attention from your utter failure to explain this very simple points by inventing all sorts of demands, all of which have been addressed amply before.

So you are trolling. Yet again.


Here is the mother of all SAGNAC EFFECT references:

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf

But even E.J. Post makes the same mistake as all other physicists: he calls the formula which features an area as the Sagnac effect, which it is not; it is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.


The SAGNAC EFFECT does not include the area in its formula.


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)




NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.

Your formula, by contrast, has an area:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

This formula, featuring an area, 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



See how easy it is to defeat you?

Just like that.


The ONLY thing you have left is trolling: if the mods would take care of this aspect, you'd have nothing left to say.

You are trolling, yet again, this forum.

You are not addressing the main issues here.

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


Very simple, yet you are trolling on a daily basis, failing to understand this very easy to understand point.


At this point in time, there is nothing to discuss here, nothing about the SAGNAC EFFECT: I have just proven that your formula is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation.

It seems you run into the same sort of issues regarding this topic in other forums as well:

Scienceforums.net

Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula
By sandokhan, March 24 in Speculations

Moderator Note

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

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118524-globalgeneralized-sagnac-effect-formula/#comments

In addressing the main issues here, we're not the only ones to think there's no science in your science.

My incursion in the scienceforums debate proved one thing: it is a good thing they closed that thread, because otherwise I would have demolished their forum.

They had no arguments to debate the SAGNAC EFFECT with me.

The policy over on the scienceforums is this: anyone who dares to state anything against TGR/TSR is moved to the bottom of the barrel section, where you are not allowed to say much, because they close the threads right away.

However, for the period my thread was open, I was able to prove that their knowledge of the subject was woefully inadequate to even dream to debate with me.

What do you think is going to happen to you stash if you get the wild idea that you can debate with me not only the SAGNAC EFFECT but any other FE vs RE subject? Make no mistake about it, I will demolish your beliefs in less than 20 seconds.


edit

I was the one who brought the link to the scienceforums debate here in the FED section, not too long ago.

So, what you posted is actually old news.

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

Fine.

Why then, were they not able to explain the facts which were clearly exposed in that thread? You see, they failed to answer the fact that the formula for the CORIOLIS EFFECT includes the area, but not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

When did they actually close the thread? The minute I posted the passage which proved that the Sagnac effect is not related to the area of the interferometer.

You might also notice THE SAME KIND of trolling, on their own turf, exhibited here by the RE.

You are not addressing the main issues here.

No, I have addressed it quite explicitly.
I have provided my own derivation, yet again, clearly explaining each step.
I have provided a scientific journal article to back up my claim, which even uses experimental data to show that the Sagnac effect is as I say.
I have dealt with your derivation, clearly explaining why it is wrong. As a reminder, your derivation is wrong because when trying to find a total time for the a beam of light, you instead find a time difference, which corresponds to nothing in reality.
I have also provided a simple example which shows your formula is wrong, as it predicts a shift when there should be none.
I have also explained why the vast majority of the articles you bring up do not apply, as they are discussing a different issue (e.g. a FOC not a rotating ring interferometer).

Meanwhile you have repeatedly avoided very simple questions.

You are the one not addressing the main issues here.

If you want to try addressing them, then stop with the semantics, stop bringing up FOCs and PCMS and deal with a simple ring interferometer.

Address the issues raised:
Again:
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).

Do I need to start with simple questions again?

If so, see if you can answer this one (and answer it correctly, without misrepresenting a FOC where the source/detector moves relative to the ring as the entire thing moving as one):
If we take a rectangular interferometer and have it undergo uniform linear motion, with the entire interferometer moving as one, should we expect any Sagnac phase shift?
If so, which beam is faster, the clockwise beam or the counter clockwise beam?

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.

Have you forgotten the definition of linear velocity?

No, have you?
I assume you are talking about tangential velocity?
This is given by the product of the angular velocity and the distance from the centre of rotation.
That part is quite important.
If you have a loop which is not concentric with the centre of rotation (such as in Yeh's paper), then you CANNOT just use the radius.

Also, have you forgotten the definition of area for a circular sector?
A=R*l, so just like you want to pretend the formula uses velocity, it can likewise be claimed to use area.
So your claim that it uses a linear velocity is less valid than the reality of it using an area.

But as I already pointed out, the interferometer in that paper is nothing like what we are discussing and as such is irrelevant.

Both Professor Yeh and myself have derived the SAME FORMULA.

No, you don't. You have a different formula, and like I said, it is a different interferometer. As such it is irrelevant.

You are trying to deflect attention from your utter failure to explain this very simple points

You mean like your failure to explain what your time difference between the arms is meant to represent?
Or why you feel the need to change the sign for a time when it travels backwards along the arm, which would only make sense if it also went backwards in time?

Again, stop projecting, it wont help.

Here is the mother of all SAGNAC EFFECT references:
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdf

And have you bothered reading it?
Have you noted that it again agrees with me, not you?

It states that the shift is proportional to the area and angular velocity.

So if you want to use that go ahead and accept that you were wrong.

Once again, you are rejecting well established science, while complaigning about others allegedly doing so, when the others are just refusing to accept your baseless claims about the science.

See how easy it is to defeat you?

Well it seems to be completley impossible for you.
You are yet to address any of the points raised.
Instead you have just repeated the same refuted spam.

Again, if you want to defeat me you need to do the following:
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).

And no, appealing to a bunch of papers which are not related to the interferometer we are discussing will not help you.
Appealing to papers which you then attack and say they got it wrong will not help you.

Either accept the papers from the scientific community in their entirety, which means accepting that the Sagnac shift for a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors is given by dt=4*A*w/c^2, regardless of the geometry of the ring or if it is rotating about its centre or rotating about some other point; or stop using papers entirely and defend your claims yourself.

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.

This is marvelous.

FINALLY, YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE FORMULA YOU DERIVED IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.

We are done here.

jackblack has finally ADMITTED that he is actually A FLAT EARTH BELIEVER.

I told you and rabinoz that I would make a flat earth believer out of you both.

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

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

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.

Don't you understand what you have JUST STATED?

YOU HAVE STATED HERE, IN FRONT OF EVERYONE WHO IS READING, THAT THE FORMULA YOU DERIVED IS ACTUALLY THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.

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


Not only I win hands down, but you have revealed to everyone here that you have trolled this forum for nothing.

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

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

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.

You must go back to high school to study physics.

THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND THE SAGNAC EFFECT ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT PHYSICAL PHENOMENA.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect on the light beams proportional to the area of the interferometer) and the SAGNAC EFFECT (an electromagnetic effect proportional to the radius of the rotation).

One is a PHYSICAL EFFECT: the Coriolis effect.

The other is an ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECT: the Sagnac effect.

You have just stated that you do not know physics at all jackblack.


Two different phenomena require TWO DIFFERENT FORMULAS.


The formula you derived is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, by your own very statement now:

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

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

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.

THE CORIOLIS EFFECT IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE AREA OF THE INTERFEROMETER.


BUT NOT THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

Here is the proof.

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)




NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.


If you have a loop which is not concentric with the centre of rotation (such as in Yeh's paper), then you CANNOT just use the radius.

WHAT ?!

The interferometer (a ring laser interferometer as an example or the MGX) is rotated around a certain axis (center of the Earth). You have a radius connecting that center with the sides of the interferometer, and also an angular velocity of rotation. You multiply the radius by the angular velocity and you get your linear velocity very easily.

Since the formulas are the same, mine and Professor Yeh's formula, it means the same situation applies to both cases.

Very easy to understand.


Now, I am going to celebrate my total victory here.

Total victory, except for the maths bits yay

There is an enclosed area in that expression, you post a diagram of it, above the text, at least a dozen times a day.

FINALLY, YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE FORMULA YOU DERIVED IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.

No, I haven't.
The formula I derived is the Sagnac effect formula.
The paper you are appealing to claims that what is known as the Sagnac effect is just the Coriolis effect.
If you want to call it the Coriolis effect, go ahead. I will continue to call it the Sagnac effect, as it is called in the mainstream scientific literature. (you know, like by all those papers you claim get it wrong)

BUT NOT THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

Ignoring reality wont help you.
I have already provided the proof in the form of a derivation of the shift and with scientific papers, including the ones you have appealed to.
The shift, for a rotating ring itnterferometer is proportional to the area, not the linear velocity.
A FOC has a different formula due to the fundamental difference between it and the rotating ring interferometer.

If you have a loop which is not concentric with the centre of rotation (such as in Yeh's paper), then you CANNOT just use the radius.
WHAT ?!

That is a fairly simple statement to understand.
In the formula you are appealing to from Yeh, they use the radius and length (the product of which gives area), and an angular velocity. This can be simplified to an area and an angular velocity which you outright reject. You instead want to pretend that you can use this angular velocity and radius to get a linear velocity even though is absolutely no requirement for the loops to be concentric with the centre of rotation. That means you cannot use the radius. Instead you need to use the distance from the centre. That means Yeh's formula is not like yours. It does not provide 2 lengths and 2 linear velocities.
It is a different formula.

Also note that it is nothing like the interferometer being discussed.

Now, I am going to celebrate my total victory here.

Perhaps you should try achieving a small victory first.
Start by dealing with what you need to do to obtain a victory:
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).


Just repeatedly asserting my derivation is wrong, without being able to show a single problem wont help. Nor will appealing to scientific papers, when you reject scientific papers.
You need to show an actual problem with the derivation.

So far you have no chance of victory as you haven't even attempted to address these massive issues with your claims.

THIS IS FLAT EARTH DAY HERE.

It just can't get better than this.

Not only has jackblack admitted that his formuia is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, but now he is desperately trying to deny his statements.

But it doesn't work like that.


Is jackblack an adept of DOUBLETHINK?

It seems so.

The formula I derived is the Sagnac effect formula.

It can't be, since you admitted minutes ago that the formula you derived is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

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.


You have been accused of intellectual dishonesty before, you want to add to that even DOUBLETHINKING?


There is no going back for you now.

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.
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.

A TOTAL FANTASTIC WIN FOR FE.


The shift, for a rotating ring itnterferometer is proportional to the area, not the linear velocity.

Sure, for the CORIOLIS EFFECT, as you have just admitted.

For the SAGNAC EFFECT there is no area.

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)




NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.


Please come to your senses.


This can be simplified to an area and an angular velocity

There is no area in the interferometer used by Professor Yeh: just a segment connecting two mirrors.



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


MORE PROOFS THAT THE SAGNAC EFFECT DOES NOT FEATURE AN AREA.

SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA OR A LOOP

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

The use of a phase-conjugate mirror has permitted new breakthroughs in the experimental science of the Sagnac effect.

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.



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 Sagnac effect for a ROTATING LINEAR SEGMENT interferometer IS: 2vL/c2, where v=RΩ.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf


You have been totally defeated here jackblack.

Not only has jackblack admitted that his formuia is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, but now he is desperately trying to deny his statements.
But it doesn't work like that.

It doesn't work like that. You lying about what I did wont magically change reality to match your fantasy.

It can't be, since you admitted minutes ago that the formula you derived is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Again, I did no such thing. Can you read English? I said that they (i.e. the authors of the paper you are appealing to) said it was. I did not say that I said it was that.

Now again, how about you stop with all the semantic BS and deal with the issues raised?
And no, running off onto yet another tangent, to discuss yet another type of interferometer will not help.

But lets see what you bring now:

The shift, for a rotating ring itnterferometer is proportional to the area, not the linear velocity.
For the SAGNAC EFFECT there is no area.
https://web.infn.it/GINGER/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/sagnac_AJP.pdf

Again, if you want to appeal to scientific literature, you have already lost. I have already provided a paper which shows that it is proportional to the area.

But don't worry, this reference of yours still supports me.
Tell me, what is its equation 2?
Is it the time difference, given as 4*A*w/c^2?

So yet again, your own references show you are wrong.

The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity, but for a simple rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors it is based upon the area and angular velocity.

If you wish to disagree, provide a reference which states anything like what you claim for a normal rotating ring interferometer, not a FOC.

There is no area in the interferometer used by Professor Yeh: just a segment connecting two mirrors.

Sure, just "a segment" which is wound into a loop which encloses an area.
This are is given by l*r, i.e. the circumference times the radius.

Stop manipulating their formula into something it isn't.
There formula does not use any linear velocity.
It only has angular velocity.

Like I said before (and you ignored), you can only convert between them with the distance from the centre of rotation. Instead of doing that you are using the radius of the loop.
That requires both loops, clearly shown in 2 separate locations, to be concentric, a direct contradiction.

Meanwhile, the conversion from the circumference and radius to the area is always correct.
The one caveat is that if you increase the number of loops, it is the effective area which is the area of 1 loop multiplied by the number of loops.

That means your claims about the formula are pure nonsense as R₁Ω is not the same as V₁.
You wold need to calculate the velocity for each tiny component of the loop, and that needs the distance to the centre of rotation, not the centre of the loop.

Meanwhile, my claims about the formula are perfectly correct:

φ = -2(φ₂ - φ₁) = 4π(R₁L₁+R₂L₂)Ω/λc = 4π(A₁+A₂)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(A₁+ A₂)Ω/c²

A nice thing to note, is that if you do make the 2 rings concentric and the same size, then A=A₁=A₂
and you are left with:
Δt = 4 A Ω/c²

But like I said, this uses a PCM. It is not the interferometer we are discussing.
So it is just a tangent. A distraction from the real issue.

The use of a phase-conjugate mirror has permitted new breakthroughs in the experimental science of the Sagnac effect.

No it hasn't.
All you have provided is a non-peer reviewed claim, which relies upon unproven assumptions about how a PCM works, with absolutely no experimental backing.

That is not a breakthrough in any sense of the word.

But again, it uses a PCM, and thus is irrelavent to the discussion.

Now how about you address the points you have been repeatedly avoiding?

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).

Today it has been jackblack's worst disaster to date, his worst day performance ever.

A total victory for FE.

It can't get worse than this for him.

jackblack has just admitted he is a FLAT EARTH BELIEVER.


He has even lost control of what he is saying now.

Quote from: sandokhan on October 01, 2019, 04:53:19 AM

It can't be, since you admitted minutes ago that the formula you derived is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

I did not say that I said it was that.

Come again?

But you did say that you said it was that.

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.


There is no going back for you now.

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 HAVE TROLLED THIS FORUM FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL.


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


THIS IS FLAT EARTH DAY FOR SURE!!!

The "generalised Sagnac effect" for a FOC may be based upon a velocity, but for a simple rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors it is based upon the area and angular velocity.

But again, it uses a PCM, and thus is irrelavent to the discussion.

DID YOU JUST SAY THAT THE SAGNAC EFFECT USING PCMs, FOR A FOC, IS ACTUALLY BASED ON A VELOCITY?

DID YOU?

It seems you just did!

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

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.


Then, you agree that your formula is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, and that the SAGNAC EFFECT formula is BASED ON VELOCITY.

Your own words:

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

JACKBLACK, ARE YOU STILL AWAKE?

Please go to sleep, here you are only making your disaster that much worse for yourself.

How could you write something like this:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1+R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(A1+A2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(A1+ A2)Ω/c2


You multiplied the RADIUS by the LENGTH: there is no area in Professor Yeh's interferometer.

The LENGTH is the length of the segment connecting two mirrors.

The RADIUS is the RADIUS of rotation.

High school physics is too much for you: may I suggest junior high school?

You just multiplied the LENGTH OF THE SEGMENT by the RADIUS: that is NOT THE AREA AT ALL.

There is no actual area in Professor Yeh's interferometer.

You are inventing things as you go along, a sure sign of trolling.


HERE IS PROFESSOR WANG TELLING YOU THAT IF YOU MULTIPLY THE RADIUS BY THE ANGULAR VELOCITY YOU DO GET THE LINEAR VELOCITY:



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.


You are history here jackblack.


Here is what you have just admitted today:

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

This is exactly what I have been saying here for months.

You have trolled this forum for no reason at all.

Now, finally, you admit I was right and that you were wrong.

Today it has been jackblack's worst disaster to date, his worst day performance ever.

Again, projecting wont help. How many times must this be said?

It seems you are completely refusing to engage in any form of rational debate.
Instead you just want to repeatedly lie about what I said and continue to use irrelevancies to avoid actual debate.

Time to just start skipping your spam, as you have shown humouring it will not help at all.

How could you write something like this:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1+R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(A1+A2)Ω/λc
Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(A1+ A2)Ω/c2

You multiplied the RADIUS by the LENGTH: there is no area in Professor Yeh's interferometer.

My bad, I left out a factor of 2. The radius time the length is 2 times the area, not the area.
We all make mistakes.
Because there are 2 loops you get 2 times the shift, one for each loop.

Remember some basic high school math?
For a circle with radius r, the area is pi*r^2, and the circumference is 2*pi*r.
So this means l (the circumference) multiplied by the radius gives 2*pi*r*r, i.e. 2* the area.

Sure, it could be done as a fibre coil instead of a loop for more accuracy, in which case l=2*pi*r*N, where N is the number of coils.
But that just equates to 2*N*A, where N*A gives the effective area of the loop.
It is still based upon the area and the angular velocity.

So my substitution is perfectly valid.
If you wish to reject this maths please show exactly where it is wrong.
Do you disagree that the area of a circle is pi*r^2?
Do you disagree that the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*r?
Do you disagree that for a coil, the length of the coil is 2*pi*r*N?

If you don't object to one of those points, you have no grounds to object to the shift being proportional to the product of the area and angular velocity.

The LENGTH is the length of the segment connecting two mirrors.
The RADIUS is the RADIUS of rotation.

No it isn't.
Have you read the paper you are blatantly lying about?
However, as you aren't even bothering to link to that paper, have you realised that it doesn't support you and you are now trying to bury it?
Don't worry, you posted a picture before which has enough:

Now, I might not be a genius, but I can read fairly well.
Do you notice what it says at the bottom?
It states quite explicitly that R and L refer to the radius and length of the fibre coils.
They do not refer to the radius of rotation (which would vary throughout the instrument and thus cannot be a single value anyway, did you skip that lesson in physics?) nor to the length of the fibre segment between the mirrors.
So stop lying.
Start honestly presenting your references.

In order to do so that means accepting that the formula does not feature any linear velocity. Instead it features the radius and length of a fibre coil which gives the area and number of turns, as well as an angular velocity.
Just like all the valid references say for a rotating ring interferometer and completely unlike what you claim.

For a circular loop, r*l can always be substituted for 2*A, for a coil, it is 2*N*A.
r*w can only be substituted for the tangential speed when it is rotating about its centre.

So once again, you have no victory.

If you want it, stop with the spam.
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).

I found this a particularly interesting read regarding how the Sagnac effect is very well explained using Special Relativity:

"There is a mythology among many modern crackpots that Sagnac's result was a refutation of special relativity, and that therefore the effect was for decades ignored by the scientific community. This mythology is both technically and historically untrue. First, as noted above, Sagnac’s conclusion was simply that the speed of light is independent of the source, a fact which is in perfect accord with special relativity. Second, when someone named Paul Harzer published a note in 1914 suggesting that the effect (referring to Harress’s work on light propagating in a rotating medium) was inconsistent with special relativity, Einstein immediately (July 1914) responded in the same journal, clearly explaining the fallacy in Harzer’s reasoning:

Mr. Harzer states that in accordance with relativity theory the convection coefficient (1c) is to be expected, while he finds from the experiment of Harress that the results are in accordance with convection coefficients (1b).  A view of the Harress arrangement shows however that it quite concerns the case (1b) here, so the experiment as well as Harzer’s calculation supplies not a refutation but, to the contrary, a confirmation of the theory.

Everyone familiar with special relativity, even critics such as Michelson, always recognized that the Sagnac effect is a (rather trivial) confirmation of special relativity, not a refutation.

Another part of the anti-relativityist mythology is the idea that the Michelson-Gale measurement of the Earth’s rotation in 1924 by means of the Sagnac effect refutes special relativity, and/or was viewed as such at the time. This again is utterly false, both technically (for the reason given above) and historically. The measurement was first considered by Michelson around 1905, but he realized it would not discriminate between the predictions of special relativity and those of a stationary ether theory (with no drag), so he did not pursue it. The idea was raised again, by a certain Dr. Ludwig Silberstein, in 1921 during Einstein’s visit to the United States. According to the rather breathless account given in the New York Times for May 12:

A proposal for an experiment which may prove Einstein's theory of relativity to be all wrong has been placed before scientific men here to attend Professor Einstein's lectures, and it has aroused the greatest interest. This is to test the pull of the rotating earth upon the ether to learn whether there is a drag, whole or partial, and it has several possible results, the most important of which is its effect on the theory of relativity. So important is the experiment judged to be by those who have learned of it that Professor Albert A. Michelson… has offered to perform the experiment. Professor Einstein was informed of it three days ago, and at first was inclined to doubt that it would have any bearing on his theory, but, after thinking it over, has decided that it is a new and practical way of testing his theory, and has described it as "wonderful." … Based on the ether theory the effect should be either equal to the full value [of the Sagnac effect], if there is no dragging of the ether by the spinning earth, and no effect at all if there is a full drag. Finally there would be only a fraction of the full effect if there is a partial dragging of the ether by the spinning earth. If, therefore, the experiment which Professor Michelson will perform gives a full value of the shift, this will harmonize with the general relativity theory as well as with the ether theory, but if the effect is nil, or only a fraction of the full shift of 1.4 per square kilometer, it will be "a death blow to the relativity theory," although compatible with the ether theory, testifying simply to a partial drag… Professor Einstein … said he would gladly recognize a fractional shift as a blow to his theory, and at the same time enjoy the demonstration of the novel phenomena. However, both Dr. Silberstein and Professor Einstein believe that the full shift effect will be shown.

Needless to say, when the measurement was actually performed, the full shift was observed, as Silberstein, Einstein, and Michelson had all known it would be, thereby demonstrating yet another phenomenon consistent with relativity. It would be fascinating to know how these mundane facts, which plainly describe a confirmation of relativity theory, came to be adopted into the anti-relativityist folklore as a canonical refutation of relativity.

Of course, as was obvious to Michelson and Einstein all along, this measurement [which was performed in as near to vacuum as possible) does not discriminate between relativity and a perfectly un-dragged ether, so it is a rather trivial confirmation of special relativity. However, it is also possible to perform such a measurement in a medium with an index of refraction differing from 1. Indeed many ordinary Sagnac devices using fiber optic lines and therefore actually involve the Fizeau effect as well as the Sagnac effect, because they run light in opposite directions through a rotating medium with an index of refraction differing significantly from 1. In order to account for the results in this kind of device, an etherist needs to invoke, at the very least, Fresnel's partial dragging hypothesis (whereas he needs to deny any dragging at all to account for the full shift measured in vacuum). This makes the device a somewhat less trivial confirmation of special relativity, because the Fizeau effect is not trivial. This is seldom mentioned in discussions of the Sagnac effect, perhaps justifiably, because the "pure" Sagnac effect consists of the path dependence of the optical path length with respect to a rotating system, as distinct from the Fizeau effect of light propagating in a moving medium. Nevertheless, both of these effects are present in many real Sagnac devices."

https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm

This is going to be groundhog day with a twist for you.

Much worse than yesterday.

jackblack is NO MORE.

After what happened to you yesterday, nobody here will ever care about anything you write, the fisking, the constant trolling, the desperate attempts to satisfy the cognitive dissonance.

You seem to be the last one to understand these very obvious things.


Here is what you have just admitted just a few hours ago:

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

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.




The SAGNAC EFFECT does not have an area incorporated into the formula.

Here is the proof:

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)




NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.



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!


There is no area in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula: in Professor Yeh's experiment one has a segment of fiber connecting two mirrors, that's all.

There is NO CLOSED LOOP, thus no area.

That is why your drivel is useless here.


Here is how the substitution is performed by a real expert in the field, Professor Ruyong Wang:

HERE IS PROFESSOR WANG TELLING YOU THAT IF YOU MULTIPLY THE RADIUS BY THE ANGULAR VELOCITY YOU DO GET THE LINEAR VELOCITY:



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.


So you lose, yet again.

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

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.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time t_o recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

t_o = t'γ

where γ = (1 - v²/c²)^-1/2 = 1 + v²/2c² + O(v/c)⁴...

t_o = t'(1 + v²/2c²)


dt_R = (t_o - t')/t_o = v²/(v² + 2c²)

dt_R = relativity time ratio



Now, t_o - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c

dt' = t_o - t' = t_ov/(c + v)


dt_S = (t_o - t')/t_o = v/(v + c)


dt_S = Sagnac ratio


dt_S/dt_R = (2c² + v²)/v(v + c)

When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio
reduces to 2c/v.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.

Of course, as was obvious to Michelson and Einstein all along, this measurement [which was performed in as near to vacuum as possible) does not discriminate between relativity and a perfectly un-dragged ether, so it is a rather trivial confirmation of special relativity. However, it is also possible to perform such a measurement in a medium with an index of refraction differing from 1. Indeed many ordinary Sagnac devices using fiber optic lines and therefore actually involve the Fizeau effect as well as the Sagnac effect, because they run light in opposite directions through a rotating medium with an index of refraction differing significantly from 1. In order to account for the results in this kind of device, an etherist needs to invoke, at the very least, Fresnel's partial dragging hypothesis (whereas he needs to deny any dragging at all to account for the full shift measured in vacuum). This makes the device a somewhat less trivial confirmation of special relativity, because the Fizeau effect is not trivial. This is seldom mentioned in discussions of the Sagnac effect, perhaps justifiably, because the "pure" Sagnac effect consists of the path dependence of the optical path length with respect to a rotating system, as distinct from the Fizeau effect of light propagating in a moving medium. Nevertheless, both of these effects are present in many real Sagnac devices."

Another fun part of trying to explain this effect away as partial aether drag is that as the shift is dependent upon the refractive index of the medium, and that varies with wavelength, you need different types of aether for each wavelength of light which is dragged differently by the medium.

We can do even more here.



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.

Quote from: Stash on October 01, 2019, 01:48:45 PM

Of course, as was obvious to Michelson and Einstein all along, this measurement [which was performed in as near to vacuum as possible) does not discriminate between relativity and a perfectly un-dragged ether, so it is a rather trivial confirmation of special relativity. However, it is also possible to perform such a measurement in a medium with an index of refraction differing from 1. Indeed many ordinary Sagnac devices using fiber optic lines and therefore actually involve the Fizeau effect as well as the Sagnac effect, because they run light in opposite directions through a rotating medium with an index of refraction differing significantly from 1. In order to account for the results in this kind of device, an etherist needs to invoke, at the very least, Fresnel's partial dragging hypothesis (whereas he needs to deny any dragging at all to account for the full shift measured in vacuum). This makes the device a somewhat less trivial confirmation of special relativity, because the Fizeau effect is not trivial. This is seldom mentioned in discussions of the Sagnac effect, perhaps justifiably, because the "pure" Sagnac effect consists of the path dependence of the optical path length with respect to a rotating system, as distinct from the Fizeau effect of light propagating in a moving medium. Nevertheless, both of these effects are present in many real Sagnac devices."

Another fun part of trying to explain this effect away as partial aether drag is that as the shift is dependent upon the refractive index of the medium, and that varies with wavelength, you need different types of aether for each wavelength of light which is dragged differently by the medium.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!

You are done here.

For good.

You have just proven that you have no knowledge whatsoever about the SAGNAC EFFECT.


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

We review the kinematic explanation of the Sagnac effect in fiber gyroscopes and recall that the index of the dielectric medium does not have any influence.

This is going to be groundhog day with a twist for you.

You mean you will just be repeating the same spam?
In that case I can just skip it.

I have shown you are blatantly lying about the papers you are using, and about what you are claiming I said/did.

After what happened to you yesterday, nobody here will ever care about anything you write, the fisking, the constant trolling, the desperate attempts to satisfy the cognitive dissonance.
You seem to be the last one to understand these very obvious things.

Like I have repeatedly told you, projecting will not help. You are describing yourself here, not me.

But this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

Like I said, if you want to play semantics, go ahead. If you want to pretend it is the Coriolis effect formula, go ahead. That will not change the fact that the shift expected for a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors is given by dt=4*A*w/c^2.

The SAGNAC EFFECT does not have an area incorporated into the formula.
Here is the proof:
https://web.infn.it/GINGER/administrator/components/com_jresearch/files/publications/sagnac_AJP.pdf

But it does. You even provided the proof.
Page 3 of the document. Page 428 of the journal. Equation 2 of the paper you are referencing.

What does it state the shift is?
THIS:

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

Your own reference agrees that the Sagnac effect for a rotating ring interferometer is a function of the area and angular velocity.
Stating that the Sagnac effect does not feature an area is a blatant lie, a lie which has been repeatedly pointed out to you which you have repeatedly ignored.

Now stop repeating the same lie and stop bringing up FOCs as they have no place in the discussion on a simple rotating ring interferometer.

THIS IS THE VERY SAME FORMULA DERIVED BY PROFESSOR YEH:

Stop lying.
Your formula is completely different from Yeh's.
Yeh's formula does not contain any linear velocity and again is for a different system.
Yeh's formula does not use the linear velocity of the fibre segments and your substitution amounts to nothing more than a blatant lie.

You repeating the same lie again and again won't help you.
Your lie has been exposed and there is no escaping it.

Professor Wang multiplies the radius by the angular velocity

For yet another different system.

Like I said, quit with the spam.

Start dealing with a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors.
Try finding a single reference which backs up your claims regarding what they shift should be for a rotating ring interferometer with normal mirrors.
You wont find any.
Do you know why?
Because you formula is pure nonsense with no connection to reality. Your derivation requires pretending a time difference and a total are the same thing, or that light will magically travel back in time.

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

As has been explained to you plenty of times, it is a non-relativistic effect. You do not need relativity to invoke it.
But if you do a full relativistic derivation you end up with the same result.
This doesn't refute relativity at all. It just shows it isn't needed.

And it gets even worse for you, just like I promised.
PAGE 5
This experiment

As I told you before, it isn't an experiment.
It is a collection of previewed claims based upon assumed properties of a PCM which have not been demonstrated.
If it was actually valid it would have been published by now.
Wang likely had it rejected by journals and resorted to just posting it.

You have just proven that you have no knowledge whatsoever about the SAGNAC EFFECT.
https://www.osapublishing.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-6-8-401

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 wasn't discussing the Sagnac effect at all in my comment.

I have shown that I understand the Sagnac effect quite well, and that you have no idea what you are talking about, with you continually conflating/confusing FOCs with rotating ring interferometers and conflating normal mirrors with PCMs and having no idea how to derive the actual  shift.

I think this will be the last time in this thread I discuss any FOCs or PCMs until you deal with the simple rotating ring interferometer.


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).

Until you have done that, you lose.
My derivation stands unchallenged and confirmed by a multitude of scientific references, including the references you use.
Your derivation stands defeated and unsupported by any scientific reference.
Your formula is refuted by a simple thought experiment.

You lose, big time.
Spamming again just means you lose even more.