Solar power source

  • 243 Replies
  • 13469 Views
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #210 on: November 16, 2019, 02:21:40 PM »
Well if that's the way they see the world then the best of luck to them that's all I can say. They will certainly need it.  The only pancakes I have experience of have got honey or jam on them. Or maple syrup of course if you are in the US.  Best pancakes I ever ate!
« Last Edit: November 16, 2019, 02:24:24 PM by Nucleosynthesis »

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #211 on: November 16, 2019, 02:55:52 PM »

to back up your hypothesis of a 600m d sun 15km away.

But I have.

The diameter is based on the subdivision of the distance between the two tropics and the fact that the diameter of the Sun MUST BE LESS than the total westward precessional movement in the course of a single year (1.5 km).


Ahhh because reasons!

What distance are you using for tropic to tropic?
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #212 on: November 16, 2019, 03:09:00 PM »
Hahaha cosmic ray device did it

Sandy you do know that Teslas cosmic ray device patent was a passive detector. If he had managed to build it he would have been able to detect ionized particles, effectively inventing a Gieger counter about 100 years before Gieger.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #213 on: November 16, 2019, 06:00:15 PM »
to back up your hypothesis of a 600m d sun 15km away.

But I have.

The diameter is based on the subdivision of the distance between the two tropics and the fact that the diameter of the Sun MUST BE LESS than the total westward precessional movement in the course of a single year (1.5 km).
Why is there the slightest connection between the diameter of the Sun and "the total westward precessional movement in the course of a single year"?
And how does that back up your hypothesis of a 600 m diameter sun 15 km high?

Let's put your 600 m diameter 15 km high sun to the test.
It can readily be shown that the angular size of the Sun when directly overhead is typically 0.53° - go outside and measure it!.
If the Sun is 600 m in diameter that would make it (600 m)/radians(0.53°) = 64,900 m or 64.9 km away, not 15 km, strike 1.

I know that at the solar noon on the summer solstice (December 22 2018) the sun is directly overhead on the Tropic of Capricorn, a little south of Rockhamton in Queensland.
I also know that here, about 4°, or 445 km) south of Rockhamton, at the solar noon on the same day, the sun is about 4° north of directly overhead but it still has that same angular size of about 0.53°.
But your tiny 600 m diameter sun should have an angular size of only degrees(600/(445 x 1000)) = 0.077° - that's very odd, strike 2.

And still there's more!
At the winter solstice here on June 21 2019 the Sun was over the Tropic of Cancer, about 5650 km north of here.
So at the winter solstice your Sun should have an angular size of only degrees(600/(5650 x 1000)) = 0.006° - Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice, strike 3 and your sun is out!.

Quote from: sandokhan
As for the distance, here is the real cruising altitude of aircrafts:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464
Oh come off it! You say:
Quote
An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure (actually it measures the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves).
What hogwash!  An aneroid barometer measures the atmospheric pressure due to the easily measured g = 9.8 m/s2!

Where are your measurements of the refractive index of your hypothetically ether? Please show how you predict the refractive index of your aether at various altitudes.

Next you'll be trying to convince us that the Deluge occurred some 310 years ago.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #214 on: November 16, 2019, 06:21:29 PM »
Hahaha cosmic ray device did it

Sandy you do know that Teslas cosmic ray device patent was a passive detector. If he had managed to build it he would have been able to detect ionized particles, effectively inventing a Gieger counter about 100 years before Gieger.
Nikola Tesla firmly believed in the Globe earth, the Heliocentric Solar System and the Cosmology of his time.

What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers.  He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary!

See this short extract from one if his addresses:
Quote from: Nicola Tesla
HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla
NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
I have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that  Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.

And many of Nikoa Tesla's inventions specifically mention and picture the Globe.

Look here and learn all about the "Real Nikola Tesla":
Quote from: Frank G. Carpenter
Tesla universe INVENTIONS OF TESLA

Mother Earth Put to Work.
“By this invention every live part of Mother Earth's body would be brought into action. Energy will be collected all over the globe in amounts small or large, as it may exist, ranging from a fraction of one to a few horse power or more. Every water fall can be utilized, every coal field made to produce energy to be transmitted to vast distances, and every place on earth can have power at small cost. One of the minor uses might be the illumination of isolated homes. We could light houses all over the country by means of vacuum tubes operated by high frequency currents. We could keep the clocks of the United States going and give everyone exact time; we could turn factories, machine shops and mills, small or large, anywhere, and I believe could also navigate the air."

Transmission of Intelligence.
One of the most important features of this invention,” said Mr. Tesla, “will be the transmission of intelligence. It will convert the entire earth into a huge brain, capable of responding in every one of its parts. By the employment of a number of plants, each of which can transmit signals to all parts of the world, the news of the globe will be flashed to all points. A cheap and simple receiving device, which might be carried in one's pocket, can be set up anywhere on sea or land, and it will record the world's news as it occurs, or take such special messages as are intended for it.
It sure looks as though Tesla believed the earth to be a rotating Globe and the Heliocentric Solar System.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #215 on: November 16, 2019, 10:07:50 PM »
There are no strikes, just the local-aether model which is a fact of science since the GPS satellites DO NOT RECORD/REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Dr. C.C. Su explains:

"It is supposed that in the region under sufficient influence of the gravity due to the Earth, the Sun, or another celestial body, there forms a local ether which in turn moves with the gravitational potential of the respective body. For earthbound waves, the medium is the earth local ether which as well as earth’s gravitational potential is stationary in an ECI (earth-centered inertial) frame, while the sun local ether for interplanetary waves is stationary in a heliocentric inertial frame."

Each layer of the ether field has a different index of refraction. The angular size of the Sun is a DIRECT MEASURE of this ether field.

Make sure you understand the fact that the GPS satellites do not register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You cannot have a globe orbiting the Sun if there is no ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

That is why each and every physicist who discovers this fact is practically forced to accept the local-aether model.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.



Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Principal Scientist at CALTECH, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)


Formula for the orbital SAGNAC EFFECT derived by Dr. Massimo Tinto, from CALTECH: 2VL

Formula for the rotational SAGNAC EFFECT derived by Dr. Daniel Shaddock, from CALTECH: 4Aω/c^2

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #216 on: November 17, 2019, 12:28:52 AM »
There are no strikes, just the local-aether model which is a fact of science since the GPS satellites DO NOT RECORD/REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
Incorrect! I asked you to:
to back up your hypothesis of a 600m d sun 15km away.

But I have.

The diameter is based on the subdivision of the distance between the two tropics and the fact that the diameter of the Sun MUST BE LESS than the total westward precessional movement in the course of a single year (1.5 km).
Why is there the slightest connection between the diameter of the Sun and "the total westward precessional movement in the course of a single year"?
And how does that back up your hypothesis of a 600 m diameter sun 15 km high?

You have not done that.

Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. C.C. Su explains:

"It is supposed that in the region under sufficient influence of the gravity due to the Earth, the Sun, or another celestial body, there forms a local ether which in turn moves with the gravitational potential of the respective body. For earthbound waves, the medium is the earth local ether which as well as earth’s gravitational potential is stationary in an ECI (earth-centered inertial) frame, while the sun local ether for interplanetary waves is stationary in a heliocentric inertial frame."

Each layer of the ether field has a different index of refraction. The angular size of the Sun is a DIRECT MEASURE of this ether field.

Quote from: sandokhan
Make sure you understand the fact that the GPS satellites do not register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You cannot have a globe orbiting the Sun if there is no ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
Who said that you can't?
Dr. C.C. Su obviously understands that the earth is a "Globe orbiting the Sun".
Masimo Tinto of JPL, California Institute of Technology obviously understands that the earth is a "Globe orbiting the Sun". see later.

Or are you claiming that you know more on these matters than either Dr. C.C. Su or Masimo Tinto?

Quote from: sandokhan
That is why each and every physicist who discovers this fact is practically forced to accept the local-aether model.
Really? Please prove that claim, thank you!

Quote from: sandokhan
Algebraic Approach to Time-Delay Data Analysis for Orbiting LISA by K. Rajesh Nayak and J-Y. Vinet
That presentation is based on LISA orbiting the Sun about 20° behind the Earth so K. Rajesh Nayak and J-Y. Vinet both must accept that the Earth orbits the Sun. Look at the diagram of LISA's orbit that they use!


That seems clear enough to me!

Quote from: sandokhan
This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:
LISA: THE LASER INTERFEROMETER SPACE ANTENNA by Masimo Tinto of JPL, CalTech

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.
Again all of Masimo Tinto's calculations are based on LISA rotating on its own axis and orbiting the Sun about 20° behind the Earth. Look at the diagrams he uses:
     
Not this:
Quote from: Masimo Tinto, p 387
The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.  With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (L and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).
Masimo Tinto states that LISA and hence the Earth are orbiting the Sun at about 30 km/s and this is consistent with the Sun being about 15,000,000 km from Earth but NOT with the Sun being 15 km above the Earth.

Those diagrams would be totally meaningless if the Sun were 600 m in diameter and only 15 km above the Earth!

So the whole paper would be quite meaningless if the Earth did not orbit the Sun.

Quote from: sandokhan
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.
Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.
Well, it is just as well that your own references by K. Rajesh Nayak, J-Y. Vinet[/color] and Masimo Tinto support my claim that the Earth does orbit the Sun once a year and not your claim that "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun".

Or are you going to claim that your own references are mistaken.

Quote from: sandokhan
<< There's no point dealing with this part because it presents no evidence supporting you claim "that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun". >>
Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.
But you own references are based entirely on the Earth's orbiting the Sun once per year so you have presented nothing to support your claim.

Quote from: sandokhan
Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.
No, your logic is completely false and your none of your support that claim.

Now please come up with some support for your Sun being 600 m in diameter and only 15 km above the Earth.
The simplest measurements show that claim quite incorrect.

So do you believe the Sun-Earth geometry as shown by these papers is correct or not.
If you claim that they are incorrect then your claiming support from them is quite useless!

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #217 on: November 17, 2019, 12:41:48 AM »
There are no strikes, just the local-aether model which is a fact of science
No, it is an idea, not a fact.

But more importantly, IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE TOPIC AT HAND!
Do you understand that?

Stop spamming your same refuted nonsense about the Sagnac effect. IT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS THREAD!!

All of the sources you use show you to be wrong.
So far all you have been able to do to attack a RE, is show that an approximation doesn't give the correct numbers, which isn't surprising as it is an approximation.

Now stop with the nonsense and start justifying your wild claims.

Explain how you managed to come up with the idea of such a tiny sun.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #218 on: November 17, 2019, 01:20:47 AM »
All of you here still do not understand what is going on, so it seems I have to repeat these messages until you do.

Who said that you can't?
Dr. C.C. Su obviously understands that the earth is a "Globe orbiting the Sun".


The GPS satellites do not record/register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is an undeniable fact of science.

Now, the Earth is stationary.

So, the relativists and other scientists have realized that they have to do something about this situation which cannot be denied any longer.

Virtually the only (temporary) escape is this: A LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.

Then, using M. Ruderfer formidable result from ether drift theory, they can say/claim that the local-ether takes care of the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is as far as they are willing to go with this: they cannot be bothered to think even of the implications of having accepted an ETHER MODEL, which defies both Newtonian mechanics and TSR/TGR.

CALTECH/NASA/ESA can claim that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, however GPS satellites DO NOT RECORD OR REGISTER THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Everyone who studies these facts is forced, just like Dr. C.C. Su, to accept the local-ether model.

Can everyone here understand these plain facts?

GPS satellites do not record the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Then, you have two choices:

1. The Earth is stationary

2. The local-ether model

Since the folks at CALTECH/NASA/ESA cannot accept the first choice, they will choose the second option.

However, they will not accept the consequences of this second choice.

So, all of you here MUST BECOME FERVENT LOCAL-ETHER BELIEVERS.

You have no other choice.

You have to explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, which is an accepted fact of science, as you have already seen from the copious references which have been provided.


Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.



Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

*

Macarios

  • 2062
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #219 on: November 17, 2019, 01:38:31 AM »
The accuracy of the GPS system with or without it is enough to do the job.

But:

All that still does not explain the source of the Sun's power.
(That is the actual topic of this thread.)

How the Sun for all this time achieves the measured 1360 Watt per square meter at all that area?
Where the energy comes from?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #220 on: November 17, 2019, 01:48:29 AM »
All of you here still do not understand what is going on, so it seems I have to repeat these messages until you do.

Who said that you can't?
Dr. C.C. Su obviously understands that the earth is a "Globe orbiting the Sun".


The GPS satellites do not record/register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is an undeniable fact of science.
Possibly, but I'd be far more certain that the rotating Globe Earth orbiting the Sun are undeniable facts of science.
Find me a reputable scientist who would deny that.

I can name a number that do not accept relativity and support some form of aether but none that would for a moment entertain a flat stationary Earth.

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, the Earth is stationary.
You have never proven that and none of your own references support that.
If you don't believe your own references I fail to see why I should accept your deductions from them.

If you want to carry this on present some references that support your conjectures.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2019, 01:51:03 AM by rabinoz »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #221 on: November 17, 2019, 01:49:16 AM »
The accuracy of the GPS system with or without it is enough to do the job.

What?

The GPS on your mobile phone is functioning BECAUSE the signal does not register/record the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

If it did, the errors would be measured in kilometers.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.

In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.

Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #222 on: November 17, 2019, 01:55:23 AM »
You have never proven that and none of your own references support that.

There are plenty of proofs that the Earth is indeed stationary: Hoek's experiments, Mascart's experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136

However, the most direct and precise proof is the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You still are at a loss to understand what is going on. Since there is no ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, now the Earth is stationary.


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

https://web.archive.org/web/20050217023926/https://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.

You have to deal with the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, which you are not.


LISA Space Antenna



The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING. Then, the Earth is stationary. Or you have to accept the local-ether model.




Re: Solar power source
« Reply #223 on: November 17, 2019, 02:13:24 AM »
Let's try and put this simply. 

If the Earth is stationary as you have stated several times now, then why does the diagram of the LISA Space Antenna that you have also posted several times now and are presumably therefore using as evidence to support your claims to the contrary, clearly show the heliocentric model in action with the Earth orbiting the Sun beyond the orbits of both Mercury and Venus?

Just answer that.  Ideally in just a couple of sentences.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #224 on: November 17, 2019, 02:25:22 AM »
All of you here still do not understand what is going on, so it seems I have to repeat these messages until you do.
No, that would still be you who doesn't seem to understand, especially given that you want to repeat the same spam.

It is quite easy to understand what is going on.
You made a bunch of baseless claims which you have absolutely nothing to back up.
Rather than even trying to back them up you instead choice to attack the RE. Instead showing a problem with the RE you instead chose to focus on a highly specific model which is an approximation with known limitations which you chose to ignore.

After having your argument repeatedly destroyed you followed your typical path or repeatedly spamming nonsense regarding the Sagnac effect, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

But you know you have no case and you know you cannot back up your claims, and you know all your sources show you to be wrong, so you just repeat the same spam again and again and again.

Stop with the spam and actually deal with the topic at hand.

Show us the line of reasoning which leads you to conclude that the sun is the size you claim.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #225 on: November 17, 2019, 02:32:38 AM »
Just answer that.  Ideally in just a couple of sentences.



Show us the line of reasoning which leads you to conclude that the sun is the size you claim.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.



Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #226 on: November 17, 2019, 02:44:57 AM »
Just answer that.  Ideally in just a couple of sentences.

So you are admitting that you are a paid shill refusing to understand anything because you are paid not to?

Show us the line of reasoning which leads you to conclude that the sun is the size you claim.
Your ignorance on the Sagnac effect and the gravity of the sun has nothing at all to do with your number.

You claim the sun is a 600 m disc and the known scientific model of the universe supported by mountains of evidence has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Tell us how you arrived at 600 m rather than 1000 m of 10 m or 1 Gm.

Did you just pull it out of nowhere because you thought it sounded nice?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #227 on: November 17, 2019, 02:49:16 AM »
The accuracy of the GPS system with or without it is enough to do the job.

What?

The GPS on your mobile phone is functioning BECAUSE the signal does not register/record the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

But none of that is evidence that the Earth is not a Globe orbiting the sun and it is quite irrelevant to the topic, "Solar power source".

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #228 on: November 17, 2019, 03:03:30 AM »
Your pal has a total of over 300 days online. Over 20,000 posted messages.

You are very close to that record.

So, it's pretty obvious who the paid shills are.

But none of that is evidence that the Earth is not a Globe orbiting the sun

You still are at a loss to understand what is going on. Since there is no ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, now the Earth is stationary.


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

https://web.archive.org/web/20050217023926/https://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.

You have to deal with the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, which you are not.


LISA Space Antenna



The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING. Then, the Earth is stationary. Or you have to accept the local-ether model.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #229 on: November 17, 2019, 03:05:42 AM »
Just answer that.  Ideally in just a couple of sentences.


There's nothing to answer unless you are accusing all the authors of the papers that YOU quoted from of lying simply because they do not supports your ridiculous hypotheses.

I asked you for evidence that the Sun is 600 m in diameter and 15 km high and I can readily see that is false.

Quote from: sandokhan
Show us the line of reasoning which leads you to conclude that the sun is the size you claim.
Nothing you posted is relevant to to my request!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #230 on: November 17, 2019, 03:21:27 AM »
You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING. Then, the Earth is stationary.
CALTECH/NASA/ESA are not telling us that any orbital Sagnac effect in the GNSS is missing.
For a start the LISA analysis was just for uncancelled noise and the geometry of the LISA satellites is quite different from that of the GNSS.
Then the LISA analysis was based on General Relativity, which you deny!

Quote from: sandokhan
Or you have to accept the local-ether model.
Dr C. C. Su does not accept relativity so he bases his work on an aether model.

So no we do not "have to accept the local-ether model" and the topic is "Solar power source"!

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #231 on: November 17, 2019, 03:42:22 AM »
So, it's pretty obvious who the paid shills are.
I would say the more telling part is the ability to debate, i.e. respond to what has been said and back up arguments, vs repeatedly copying and pasting off topic nonsense.
Those that can actually debate are far less likely to be shills.
Those that just copy paste the same spam again and again and repeatedly spam off topic nonsense (like the Sagnac effect in a thread about the power source of the sun.

Yet again you fail to explain how you reached you 600 m figure.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #232 on: November 17, 2019, 04:02:34 AM »
Quote
All of you here still do not understand what is going on, so it seems I have to repeat these messages until you do.

Once again, if you see yourself as a 'teacher' in these forums, passing on your self-assumed great knowledge of your subject and certainly greater than any of us less well educated mortals, then surely you would realise that a good teacher will recognise when their students are not getting what it is you are trying to teach. In that event you will try to change your approach to teaching to a way that is more suited to the way your students learn.

So you as the teacher need to allow for that and approach your teaching from a different way.  I for one am not the greatest mathematician in the world so the endless equations that you keep posting are meaningless to me.  They look good for sure, but perhaps you could offer some plain English descriptions of what those equations are actually telling us, and how they answer my original question.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2019, 04:04:50 AM by Nucleosynthesis »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #233 on: November 17, 2019, 04:03:39 AM »
CALTECH/NASA/ESA are not telling us that any orbital Sagnac effect in the GNSS is missing.
For a start the LISA analysis was just for uncancelled noise and the geometry of the LISA satellites is quite different from that of the GNSS.


Both LISA and GPS satellites do not record or register the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized.


Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others.

With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence.
Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #234 on: November 17, 2019, 04:07:30 AM »
Once again I couldn't care less about all this stuff you keep on posting, I just want an answer to my question in a format that I understand.  If the Sun is just 32 miles across or in your case 600 metres across, then what energy source has been able to sustain its luminosity for over 4.6 billion years?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #235 on: November 17, 2019, 04:38:27 AM »
CALTECH/NASA/ESA are not telling us that any orbital Sagnac effect in the GNSS is missing.
For a start the LISA analysis was just for uncancelled noise and the geometry of the LISA satellites is quite different from that of the GNSS.

Both LISA and GPS satellites do not record or register the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
That is irrelevant to the shape of the Earth, the movement of the Earth and to the topic, "Solar power source".

So stop spamming the thread with irrelevant material and wither answer the question asked by Nucleosynthesis,
Quote
If the Sun is just . . . 600 metres across, then what energy source has been able to sustain its luminosity for over 4.6 billion years?

*

Mikey T.

  • 2442
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #236 on: November 17, 2019, 05:54:35 AM »
Amazing, topic is solar power source, Sandy can freely spam offtopic nonsense.  No moderation in sight.  I say the slightest joke, and it's " not adding to the conversation", I challenge someone to prove an assertion, it's "take some time off to calm down".
Basically, gravity powers the Sun.  It needs a lot of mass, thus must be enormous relative to us.  If it is enormous, it must be far away to look so small.  Easy peasy, flat earf proven dumb again.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #237 on: November 17, 2019, 07:17:36 AM »
It seems to be quite a consistent thing with any new post which is added. You start off with a simple question which I would have thought is pretty clear in its meaning and purpose, such that you should only really need a few replies at the most to answer the question fully.

Yet you end up with pages and pages of replies because those on the FE side don't seem to be able to answer a question simply and clearly. Instead they run off on all sorts of tangents and bring up topics which have seemingly nothing to do with the original question. In this particular case the core nuclear fusion process where hydrogen is being converted to helium at a particular rate, that seems to explain nicely what powers the Sun and how long this process can continue.

That simply cannot happen if you assert that the Sun is just 32 miles across. There would not be anywhere near enough mass in the core of the Sun for starters to generate the sort of pressures needed to raise the temperature to the required 15 million degrees to initiate the fusion process.  And then you have to sustain that for billions of years!

 The smallest sunspot you can see in a small telescope is at least as large as the Earth and the last time I looked that was near on 12,000km. So for anyone to suggest that the Sun is just 600 metres across is nonsense.

If FE 'trigonometry' dictates that the Sun is only 3000 miles above the Earth and therefore can only be 32 miles across then that should be ringing the alarm bells among flat Earthers which say 'something ain't right there!' If the FE movement want their alternative 'theory' to be taken in the least bit seriously, they have first got to come up with some figure that are realistic and viable.  No far they haven't done that. 
« Last Edit: November 17, 2019, 07:32:05 AM by Nucleosynthesis »

*

Macarios

  • 2062
Re: Solar power source
« Reply #238 on: November 17, 2019, 10:52:34 AM »
The GPS on your mobile phone is functioning BECAUSE the signal does not register/record the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

If it did, the errors would be measured in kilometers.

Missing?
Do not register?
Not accounted for?





(from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1)

____________________________________________________________________


Can we now get back to the SOLAR POWER SOURCE and stop derailing this thread, please?

____________________________________________________________________

Thanks.
.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Solar power source
« Reply #239 on: November 17, 2019, 12:22:42 PM »
[spam spam spam and more spam]
Again, none of that spam is relavent to the topic.
If you want to discuss the Sagnac effect go back to one of the countless threads where you have been repeatedly refuted.

Again, you wish to claim the sun is a 600 m wide disk.
How did you arrive at the 600 m?
Do you have any calculations to show it should be 600 m, or did you just make it up because you thought it sounded good compared to the actual size of ~ 1400000 km?