On Sandokhan definitions of the Sagnac and Coriolis Effects

Now here a summary of this thread, which might also be interpreted as a grand finale.

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

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


Even the chief troller of this website agrees:

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.

If that is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, what then is the actual SAGNAC EFFECT formula?

Here is a clue:

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.


So, the SAGNAC EFFECT formula applies TO A SEGMENT LIGHT PATH, not the area at all.


SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA OR A LOOP

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



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.


Then, the most important question: what is the SAGNAC EFFECT for the Michelson-Gale experiment?

Here is the correct derivation:

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


By far, the most important formula in physics today: it can answer each and every major question ever posed by science.


Here it is in all its beauty:

2(V₁L₁ + V₂L₂)/c²

Let V₁ = R₁ x Ω

Let V₂ = R₂ x Ω

2(R₁ΩL₁ + R₂ΩL₂)/c²

=

2(R₁L₁ + R₂L₂)Ω/c²


Fully confirmed by Professor Yeh:

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

Yes.

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

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

Have you contacted Dr. Yeh about this? Has Dr. Yeh agreed with you personally in word spoken or written?

Claiming that you formula can be derived from his paper is not the same,  that's not what I'm asking.

Here is the final ingredient: STOKES' THEOREM.

This alone PROVES that there are TWO FORMULAS for the interferometer: one is proportional to the AREA, the other one is proportional to the velocity.


According to Stokes' rule an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A is substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area. This interpretation gives

Δt = 4vL/c²

producing the same value as the earlier expression for the interferometer. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. These two integrations have different physical implications. We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area. Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.

We conclude that the later expression

Δt = 4vL/c²

is the correct interpretation.

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159

"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."

Professor Ruyong Wang has proven the Sagnac effect applies to uniform/translational/linear motion:

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

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

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf


For each interferometer there will ALWAYS be two formulas: one is proportional to the area (CORIOLIS EFFECT), the other one is proportional to the velocity (SAGNAC EFFECT).


Here is another reference which clearly spells this out:

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/137225/7/07_chapter_02.pdf

Chapter 2.8 (page 44 of the paper, page 25 of the pdf document)

One should note that though the area enclosed by light contour is zero, the Sagnac phase shift is still non-zero and the length of the light contour determines the Sagnac phase shift formula.

Sagnac phase shift depends on the lengths and speed of the moving fibre and these are the fundamental factors, rather than the enclosed area determining the SD, as customarily quoted (say, in Ref. [12])- because they observed Sagnac effect even when their FOC has zero-area.

The LSE (thought) and FOC (laboratory) experiment prove beyond doubt that Sagnac formula has nothing to do with the area enclosed by the light contour.


Therefore, here we have the final proof that there are ALWAYS two formulas to be derived for an interferometer: one formula features the area, the other one is proportional to the length of the path and the velocity of the light beams.

Proof:

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

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

BTW, the author of this paper SANKAR HAJRA?  who is SANKAR HAJRA?

Claiming that you formula can be derived from his paper is not the same,  that's not what I'm asking.

You still don't get it.

My formula was derived INDEPENDENTLY of the paper published by Professor Yeh.

The first time EVER where the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for the MGX has been derived.

The derivation is FLAWLESS.

Go ahead and read it.

The proof lies in the final formula: it is precisely identical to the one derived by Professor Yeh, no need to call anyone.


Now, you also have STOKES' THEOREM, my previous message, which PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the are ALWAYS TWO FORMULAS for each and every interferometer.


The paper on the CORIOLIS EFFECT was published in one of the most respected scientific journals in India, see the SPRINGER-VERLAG publisher page.

https://www.springer.com/physics/journal/12043

We also have Dr. Ludwik Silberstein's proof, duly corroborated on the first page of this thread.

Claiming that you formula can be derived from his paper is not the same,  that's not what I'm asking.

I get what you are saying, but it's not what I asked.  So I get  you haven't spoken with any of the authors you of these papers. Understood.

You claim you have a very important formula or derivation. The most important in modern physics. "It can answer each and every major question ever posed by science".  Yet all you do is post in the FES forums and discuss your formula with Rabinoz and Jackblack, who btw are the only people who care about looking at your important formula. You should probably thank them for doing that instead of trying to get rid of them.

It sounds pretty ridiculous to be honest. If you are in possession of such an important scientific breakthrough, why hide it here at the FES forums where barely anyone can see it?

As long ago as 1938, one of the top physicists in the world, Dr. Herbert Ives (Bell Telephone Laboratories) proved that the SAGNAC EFFECT is linear:

Ives analyzed the Sagnac experiment using a hexagonal path rather than a circular one.

In 1938 Ives showed by analysis that the measured Sagnac effect would be unchanged if the Sagnac phase detector were moved along a cord of a hexagon-shaped light path rather than rotating the entire structure. Thus, he showed the effect could be induced without rotation or acceleration."

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf

If you are in possession of such an important scientific breakthrough, why hide it here at the FES forums where barely anyone can see it?

I am very modest.

If you are in possession of such an important scientific breakthrough, why hide it here at the FES forums where barely anyone can see it?

I am very modest.

And a little shy at answering legitimate questions, apparently.

Jack's had you at check mate on the countless threads you have made on this.

By now we all know what your formula
It seems that your client (since you are acting here as his lawyer) does not. Both of you are trolling this forum.

No, everyone here knows what your formula is.

It is not the same as Yeh's no matter how many times you want to lie and say it is.
Even if it was, it doesn't matter, as it is a fundamentally different system.

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

Stop lying. You have repeatedly avoided the questions. This is consistently your behaviour.
You make a false claim, it gets refuted, I ask simple questions to show the problem, and you run from them.

See how easy it is to utterly defeat you?

Again, you have defeated no one.
But we all see how easy it is to completely defeat you.
All it takes is a single simple question which you are unable to answer because you know answering it will show you are lying or have no idea what you are talking about.

In order for you to start defeating people, you need to start addressing the issues raised. As you haven't, all your claims remain refuted.

The derivation is FLAWLESS.

Except for the massive flaw you are repeatedly ignoring and refusing to answer a very simple question on.
This flaw is where you pretend a time difference is the total time.

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

Which one do you think it is?

Either tell everyone here that you think to find a total time you find the difference between the times, or admit you doing so in your derivation is wrong.

Until you have answered this question you will have defeated no one.

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

Just like you did here:

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

You tried to claim that Toronto was under water.

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

Just like you are doing now.

Your gig is over.

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

Actually, I never claimed it was 'underwater'. You simply could never could explain why the skyline was obscured by 10's of meters of water. That should never happen on a flat earth. But that's another topic.

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

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

Very easy.

Hardly demolished, just simply sidestepped. And your sidestepping is painfully apparent to your readers. You won't even answer a simple question about the paper you cited as "one of the best". Instead, you copy/pasta the same formula over and over again. Like doing so makes a difference. That is called 'spam'.

And because you can't defend the Dr. Agathangelidis' paper question, you sidestep once again to GALAEV. Everyone can see what you're doing. It's not a mystery to anyone.

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

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

The had plenty of answers and plenty of comments. Anyone can look up the fact that you did the same thing over there: Just continued to copy/pasta the same thing over and over again to the point where they had to shut down your OP. That's why they responded with:

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

Seems to be a pattern with you which you seemingly can't make yourself aware of.

So why don't you retrench, remove a modicum of over-exaggerated ego and answer my question and JackBlack's question rather than just copy/pasta'ing the same thing over and over again. Be direct and address, not sidestep and obfuscate.

Here is the final ingredient: STOKES' THEOREM.

This alone PROVES that there are TWO FORMULAS for the interferometer: one is proportional to the AREA, the other one is proportional to the velocity.


According to Stokes' rule an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A is substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area. This interpretation gives

Δt = 4vL/c²

producing the same value as the earlier expression for the interferometer. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. These two integrations have different physical implications. We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area. Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.

We conclude that the later expression

Δt = 4vL/c²

is the correct interpretation.

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159

"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."

Professor Ruyong Wang has proven the Sagnac effect applies to uniform/translational/linear motion:

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

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

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf


For each interferometer there will ALWAYS be two formulas: one is proportional to the area (CORIOLIS EFFECT), the other one is proportional to the velocity (SAGNAC EFFECT).


Here is another reference which clearly spells this out:

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/137225/7/07_chapter_02.pdf

Chapter 2.8 (page 44 of the paper, page 25 of the pdf document)

One should note that though the area enclosed by light contour is zero, the Sagnac phase shift is still non-zero and the length of the light contour determines the Sagnac phase shift formula.

Sagnac phase shift depends on the lengths and speed of the moving fibre and these are the fundamental factors, rather than the enclosed area determining the SD, as customarily quoted (say, in Ref. [12])- because they observed Sagnac effect even when their FOC has zero-area.

The LSE (thought) and FOC (laboratory) experiment prove beyond doubt that Sagnac formula has nothing to do with the area enclosed by the light contour.


Therefore, here we have the final proof that there are ALWAYS two formulas to be derived for an interferometer: one formula features the area, the other one is proportional to the length of the path and the velocity of the light beams.

Stokes' theorem proves that there will ALWAYS be two formulas for the light beam interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other is proportional to the length/velocity.

And this proof can be extended to MGX interferometer or for a ring laser gyroscope.


Also for a circular coil with N turns, one DOES NOT multiply N by the area (there is no "area", just a segment light path), but one multiplies N by L and the total product is multiplied again by V.

Proofs forthcoming.


But for now, we have Stokes' theorem: an immediate proof that there will ALWAYS be two formulas for each light interferometer.

Stokes' theorem proves that there will ALWAYS be two formulas for the light beam interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other is proportional to the length/velocity.

No where near as simple as you make it.
You can't just stick in any velocity. You need to use the appropriate integral.

But again, thanks for admitting the Sagnac effects features an area, and thus all the times you said it didn't were lies.

Now, care to try answering the very simple question:
To find a total time from 2 times, t1, and t2, do you:
a) Add the 2 times together so the total time is t1+t2, or
b) Subtract one time from the other to find the difference in the time, such that the total time is t1-t2 (or potentially t2-t1, who knows)?

Which one do you think it is?

Either tell everyone here that you think to find a total time you find the difference between the times, or admit that you doing so in your derivation is wrong.

If you can't answer this simple question it shows you have no idea about how a very important point of your derivation goes, the very point you object to in my derivation.

See, I added the times to find the total time, while you found the difference.

Here is the proof, using line integrals, that there will ALWAYS be two formulas for the light interferometer: one features an area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.





For each interferometer there will ALWAYS be two formulas: one is proportional to the area (CORIOLIS EFFECT), the other one is proportional to the velocity (SAGNAC EFFECT).



In the case where the interferometer will be located away from the center of rotation (MGX/RLGs), there will be a factor of proportionality: R/L, where R = radius of the Earth.

R x x L

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

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

Oh no he SandoKhan't answer the question

Its easy Sandy, answer the question and end the discussion, should be relatively easy to shut us down with a flawless equation

Here is the proof, using line integrals, that there will ALWAYS be two formulas for the light interferometer: one features an area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

But not necessarily a simple one.
Note the integral.

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

Which one do you think it is?

Either tell everyone here that you think to find a total time you find the difference between the times, or admit that you doing so in your derivation is wrong.

If you can't answer this simple question it shows you have no idea about how a very important point of your derivation goes, the very point you object to in my derivation.

See, I added the times to find the total time, while you found the difference.

Your questions have been answered already, not once but multiple times. Please pay attention to my derivation.


Now, we have a FULL EQUATION, connecting the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula with the SAGNAC EFFECT formula; one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

Case 1, the center of rotation coincides with the center of the interferometer



Case 2, the center of rotation is located away from the center of the interferometer

R x x L

We are done here.

Your questions have been answered already, not once but multiple times.

No, it hasn't. You have repeatedly avoided it, likely because you know it will show you are lying to everyone.

If it has already been answered then you should easily be able to answer it again, without all the BS.
Just a nice simple answer.

To find the total time, do you add the 2 times together, or find the difference between the 2 times?

Also, if you are going to blatantly forge formulae, at least make sure you get the font and alignment right.
Your alternation to include Rx and xL is quite obvious.

Also, if you are going to blatantly forge formulae, at least make sure you get the font and alignment right.
Your alternation to include Rx and xL is quite obvious.

Of course it is my addition: I specified this fact right there in my previous message.

This factor of proportionality (R/L) was proven, for the first time, for the LISA Space Antenna:

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

Of course it is my addition: I specified this fact right there in my previous message.

No, you didn't.
You asserted there will be a constant of proportionality, by your usual method of completely ignoring the context and pretending everything is the same.
You provided no indication that you modified the formula at all.

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

Which one do you think it is?

Also, if you are going to blatantly forge formulae, at least make sure you get the font and alignment right.
Your alternation to include Rx and xL is quite obvious.

Of course it is my addition: I specified this fact right there in my previous message.

This factor of proportionality (R/L) was proven, for the first time, for the LISA Space Antenna:

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

All of which has little or no relevance to your formula or claim and zero relevence to the question before you, which has not been answered consistently over dozens of threads on this subject.

Its ok to say you dont know hun

You, jackblack, have been reported for SPAMMING.

Your question was answered a long time ago:

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


The context is very well-known: there will ALWAYS be a factor of proportionality of R/L between an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geomtrical center, and an interferometer whose center of rotation is located away from its center.

It was proven for the first time for the LISA Space Antenna:

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

You, jackblack, have been reported for SPAMMING.

Your question was answered a long time ago:

It is yet to be answered in this thread.
Even in the mountain of spam you link to, it still isn't answered.

This is a very simple question which exposes the massive flaw in your derivation, yet you refuse to address it.

Again, this is a very simple question. If you were correct you would have no problem addressing it.
The only reason to not address it is that you know it exposes you.

It is the key difference between your derivation and mine.
For my derivation, I find the total time by adding together the 2 times.
For your derivation, you subtract one time from the other, what most people would call a difference, not a total.

So answer quite clearly for everyone here, do you think you find a total by adding the values up or by finding the difference between them?

Quote from: sandokhan on October 03, 2019, 04:41:14 AM

You, jackblack, have been reported for SPAMMING.

Your question was answered a long time ago:

It is yet to be answered in this thread.

So it has been answered already, hasn't it?

Why are you SPAMMING this thread again, for the fifth time?

As for the specific location, within this thread, where your question was answered, here it is:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82968.msg2198273#msg2198273

Why do you keep on lying and spamming?


You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

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


Even you, the chief troller of this website, agree:

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.

Nope its not there either.

Its a simple question just answer it, then the thread is closed and you have your great victory...

unless

Gentlemen,

Badgering opponents for answers and spamming the same posts are not valid forms of discussion.

Let's try to keep this productive.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 03, 2019, 04:51:56 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on October 03, 2019, 04:41:14 AM

You, jackblack, have been reported for SPAMMING.

Your question was answered a long time ago:

It is yet to be answered in this thread.

As for the specific location, within this thread, where your question was answered, here it is:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82968.msg2198273#msg2198273

In the thread you reference above you state:

THIS IS THE CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA.

Here is the precise proof, peer-reviewed in an IOP article.

THIS IS AN IOP ARTICLE, one of the most comprehensive papers on the Sagnac effect ever published.






Here is reference #27:

I checked out that paper, "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations" you reference. (I could only find the Russian version so had to Google translate portions of it.) In the abstract, the author, G.B. Malykin, states:

"Various explanations of the causes of the Sagnac effect are considered. It is shown that the effect Sagnac is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity addition. This effect also finds an adequate explanation in the framework of the general theory of relativity...It is also shown that all nonrelativistic explanations of the Sagnac effect which, unfortunately, are found in a number of scientific articles, monographs and training courses, are fundamentally wrong, although in a number of special cases they lead to the correct one up to relativistic corrections result."

From his Conclusion:

"As was shown above, the Sagnac effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of addition of velocities - the speed of propagation of an arbitrary wave the nature and speed of rotation of the interferometer a - and, therefore is a kinematic effect With T About [10, 11]. It was also shown that in the absence of gravitating masses, i.e. in the absence of curvature space, calculating the Sagnac effect from a point The view of ST O and O O is completely equivalent."

Point being, he goes over many varied explanations of the causes of the Sagnac effect and determines that it "is a consequence of the relativistic law of addition of velocities." Which I believe is contrary to your position. You just happened to pull out the part in his paper where he is going over Silbestein's particular explanation among the other explanations he examined in the paper.

You regard this paper as "one of the most comprehensive papers on the Sagnac effect ever published." My question is, do you agree with Malykin's premise that "all nonrelativistic explanations of the Sagnac effect...are fundamentally wrong"? And his conlusion that, "the Sagnac effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of addition of velocities."?

You haven't done your homework.

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

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

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

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

Why is this SO IMPORTANT?

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

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


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

Malykin MISSED this most important reference.

But not me.

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

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

So it has been answered already, hasn't it?

No, it hasn't.

The closest you have come to answering it is providing your derivation, but that avoids the issue rather than providing a nice simple direct answer.

So provide a nice simple direct answer.

Stop with your spam and stop with your lies.
Just answer the question:
To find a total time from 2 times, t1, and t2, do you:
a) Add the 2 times together so the total time is t1+t2, or
b) Subtract one time from the other to find the difference in the time, such that the total time is t1-t2 (or potentially t2-t1, who knows)?

Which one do you think it is?


This is the crux of our disagreement.

With my derivation, I find the total time for the clockwise path by adding the time taken in each of the arms. I do the same for the counter clockwise path by adding the time it takes in each of the arms.
I then find the Sagnac shift by finding the difference of those 2 times, as that is what the Sagnac shift is, the time difference (or phase difference which is directly related) between the 2 counter-propagating beams of light.

Doing this, along with the assumption of an annular interferometer (required for the simple formulas used to determine the shift, and required to be able to ignore the other 2 arms) results in the correct formula of dt=4Aw/c^2.
That is the correct derivation.

In order for it to not be correct and instead have your derivation be correct you would need to assert that I found the total time using a wrong method.
What you did was find the "total time" for the clockwise beam by finding the difference in time taken to traverse each arm.
This makes no sense and does not connect to reality at all.

If you truly believe this is the correct way to find the total time I want you to admit to everyone here that you think to find a total time you find the difference between the 2 times.

If you do not agree with that and are unwilling to admit that then the only other option is that your derivation is fundamentally wrong.

So which is it? Do you think that to find a total time you find a time difference, or is your derivation wrong?

If you don't want to do that, then how about providing a graph showing the position of a photon of light as it travels along the path as a function of time? You can ignore arm 2 and arm 4, have the left side of arm 1 be y=0, the right side be y=l1, coincident with the right side of arm 3, and then the left side of arm 3 being y=l1+l2.

So can you produce such a graph, from which the difference in time (i.e. Sagnac shift) can be directly taken from the graph?

I'll produce one and post it here shortly.

You are wasting your time.

You derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

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


Even you, the chief troller of this website, agree:

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 were warned by one of the mods NOT to post in the same manner, spamming this thread, yet here you are doing it again.