Radar ranging in the Solar System

  • 235 Replies
  • 21073 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #180 on: November 23, 2019, 02:54:40 PM »
It took less than ten minutes for you to start fabricate meaningless responses. Perhaps you can fool yourself, but not your readers.

The "four trillion billion liters of water staying glued" to anything! Go down to the beach and sit and watch the waves and the tide - nothing "glued" there.
That's not an explanation, that's nothing at all.
You can't explain how water stays glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
There is nothing meaningless at all! Do YOU drift off into space? Why not? The same reason that water does not drift off into space!

Quote from: sandokhan
There isn't any because gravitation is not inherently an attractive mechanism! Learn a little about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.
Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

Quote from: sandokhan
Fine.
Please explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere using TGR.
If YOU insist.
  • The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime in such a way that a geodesic, ie the path taken by an object in free-fall, is curved ever so slightly towards that massive object, the Earth.

  • So if a litre of that water, or YOU for that were released high above the earth it (or YOU) travel through spacetime (mainly through the time part) that water would simply follow that geodesic towards the surface of the Earth.

  • But when that water reaches ground-(or sea-)level something gets in the way and it can no longer follow that geodesic.

  • With Newton's Laws of Motion a force is required to prevent an object from travelling in a straight line with the simplest example being the centripetal force needed to force an object to travel in a circle.

    So in curved spacetime a force is required to prevent an object from following a geodesic (the generalised straight line) and we call this the force of gravitation or gravity.

  • So gravity is not basically an attractive force but is an inertial force or an acceleration.

Now YOU explain how "four trillion billion liters of water staying glued" to anything! Water CANNOT be glued to anything!

Quote from: sandokhan
Who says that there is any "missing orbital Sagnac effect"?

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.
Really? From that paper, I get the impression that "it is found that the Earth’s orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations".

And the author also recognises that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun - why don't YOU accept that?

You did read this, I suppose?:
Quote
Abstract. – By examining the effects of rotational and orbital motions of the Earth on wave propagation in the global positioning system and an intercontinental microwave link, it is pointed out that the Earth’s orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations, while the Earth’s rotation does contribute to the Sagnac effect. As the propagation mechanism in the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be different from that in the aforementioned ones, it is concluded that due to the Earth’s rotation, the shift in interference fringe in this famous experiment is not exactly zero. However, by virtue of the round-trip propagation path, this shift becomes second order and hence is too small to observe within the present precision.

And this:
Quote
Conclusion. – By examining the Sagnac effect in GPS and a transpacific microwave link, it is found that the Earth’s orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations. However, the Earth’s rotation does contribute to the Sagnac effect. Thus the propagation mechanism in these microwave signals is actually in accord with the classical model with the unique propagation frame being an ECI frame. As the propagation mechanism
in the terrestrial Michelson-Morley experiment in no way can be different from that in GPS and intercontinental microwave link, it is concluded that by virtue of the round-trip Sagnac effect due to the Earth’s rotation, the shift in interference fringe in the Michelson-Morley experiment is not exactly zero, but is too small to detect. This reinterpretation is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in magnitude.
These earthbound experiments along with the interplanetary ones then provide a support for the local-ether model of wave propagation recently presented.

What "missing orbital Sagnac"?

Note this: "This reinterpretation is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in magnitude."
Su uses a Local Ether model to explain it whereas General Relativity might be better but the Institute of Physics does not censor well-written technically correct papers that differ from "modern science" because there is no such thing as a single body of knowledge "modern science".

If you want a Nobel prize just prove that General Relativity is incorrect in some way because either GR, Quantum mechanics or more like both are know to be incomplete.

And you might know this paper by Grigorii B Malykin an authir that YOU has resorted to. the abstract to his "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations" by Grigorii B Malykin is:
Quote
Abstract
Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity.

When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves.

It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases.
In brief, the Sagnac effect needs General Relativity for a complete explanation but other explanations, including Su's "Local Ether Model" can gives close results.

And I've ignored LISA again because the geometry of LISA is totally different from the GPS system.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #181 on: November 23, 2019, 03:21:13 PM »
All of your own references by Dr C.C. Su, Dr A. C. Phillips and Rick Bradford seem to "assume" that "that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, and that it is orbiting the Sun" - funny that.

You cannot assume the Earth is rotating around its own axis, if there is NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites.
I can if there is some other explanation for "NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites".
And YOU have never proven that there isn't.

But you are great on these either/or choices when to should be looking for a better explanation and come up with such weird results in consequence.
A prime example is your 600 m diameter sun that is 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or 10 km above the Earth. 

Quote from: sandokhan
That is why Dr. C.C. Su is practically forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.
No it is not. That has nothing to do with the case!
That "the Earth is rotating around its own axis" and orbiting the sun has been regarded as close enough to proven for centuries - get up to date!

Dr. C.C. Su is forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL only because he cannot accept Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
But two authors that YOU have quoted from, Hermann Weyl and Grigorii B Malykin, do accept General Relativity which is needed to accurately explain the Sagnac Effect.

Various ether models have been used to explain different observations but it is General Relativity that "fits all".

Quote from: sandokhan
No, I never got any "nonsensical results"
Stop repeating the same old many times refuted and explained spam!

Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #182 on: November 23, 2019, 07:59:16 PM »
Quote
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.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.
what is the purpose of the LISA satellite?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

Stash

  • 10023
  • I am car!
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #183 on: November 23, 2019, 09:19:25 PM »
The guy in the video

So it does work.

Now, on the web.archive.org you cannot fast forward the video, so you have to let it play.

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

The author of the video is in a jet plane and he is filming a balloon right below.

He called the owner of that balloon and found that the altitude was 4,000 ft.

Then, he presents FOUR different instances where the pilot says that the cruising altitude is 37,000 ft, while the altimeter in his hand shows ~7,700 ft.

I even presented evidence of a plane flying at nearly 40k ft.

Please explain how the altitude was determined. GPS? Altimeter?

I finally got to that part in the video. Btw, it's authored by Enslaved By No Media, a profound idiot. He also claims commercial airplanes are really only several feet in size, all in for chemtrails, planes don't run on fuel, and everyone in the airline industry is a fraud.
So in the video, he whips out his altimeter in the cabin and proceeds to measure the cabin pressure which shows him at 7100 feet. Airplanes are pressurized to between 6-8000 feet. Like I said, he is a profound idiot. If you want to hang your hat on this guy and his ridiculously uninformed video as a premise for your theories feel free to lessen your credibility accordingly.

Now, how do planes not burst into flames when they are flying a mere 10k feet from the Sun?
"Corn grows without tossing a girl down the well?"
"Oh, that makes sense." . . . . .
. . . . . "Turns out, it's the god of rain that's in charge."

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #184 on: November 23, 2019, 09:31:39 PM »
what is the purpose of the LISA satellite?
LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is a huge space version of LIGO. It 's purpose is to detect longer and weaker gravitational waves.

Quote from: NASA
WHAT is LISA?LISA is a space-based gravitational wave detector constructed of three spacecraft separated by millions of miles.

LISA's Size and Precision are Out of this World

LISA consists of three spacecraft that are separated by millions of miles and trailing tens of millions of miles, more than one hundred times the distance to the Moon, behind the Earth as we orbit the Sun. These three spacecraft relay laser beams back and forth between the different spacecraft and the signals are combined to search for gravitational wave signatures that come from distortions of spacetime. We need a giant detector bigger than the size of Earth to catch gravitational waves from orbiting black holes hundreds of millions of times more massive than our sun. NASA is a major collaborator in the European Space Agency (ESA)-led mission, which is scheduled to launch in the early 2030s and we are getting ready for it now!

LISA's enormous detector size and orbit, trailing behind the Earth as it orbits the Sun, are illustrated here. Credit: AEI/Milde Marketing




Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #185 on: November 23, 2019, 09:38:48 PM »
what is the purpose of the LISA satellite?
LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is a huge space version of LIGO. It 's purpose is to detect longer and weaker gravitational waves.

Quote from: NASA
WHAT is LISA?LISA is a space-based gravitational wave detector constructed of three spacecraft separated by millions of miles.

LISA's Size and Precision are Out of this World

LISA consists of three spacecraft that are separated by millions of miles and trailing tens of millions of miles, more than one hundred times the distance to the Moon, behind the Earth as we orbit the Sun. These three spacecraft relay laser beams back and forth between the different spacecraft and the signals are combined to search for gravitational wave signatures that come from distortions of spacetime. We need a giant detector bigger than the size of Earth to catch gravitational waves from orbiting black holes hundreds of millions of times more massive than our sun. NASA is a major collaborator in the European Space Agency (ESA)-led mission, which is scheduled to launch in the early 2030s and we are getting ready for it now!

LISA's enormous detector size and orbit, trailing behind the Earth as it orbits the Sun, are illustrated here. Credit: AEI/Milde Marketing

I should have addressed the question to  sandokhan I want his answer.
He uses it so much.
Thanks.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #186 on: November 23, 2019, 09:55:59 PM »
I finally got to that part in the video. Btw, it's authored by Enslaved By No Media, a profound idiot. He also claims commercial airplanes are really only several feet in size, all in for chemtrails, planes don't run on fuel, and everyone in the airline industry is a fraud.
So in the video, he whips out his altimeter in the cabin and proceeds to measure the cabin pressure which shows him at 7100 feet. Airplanes are pressurized to between 6-8000 feet. Like I said, he is a profound idiot. If you want to hang your hat on this guy and his ridiculously uninformed video as a premise for your theories feel free to lessen your credibility accordingly.

Now, how do planes not burst into flames when they are flying a mere 10k feet from the Sun?
You're out of date ;D! The sun's  down to 10 km ::) now!
Quote from: sandokhan
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #512 on:
April 04, 2018, 01:01:13 AM »


EARTH-SUN DISTANCE: ~10 KILOMETERS II
There, right from horse's mouth!

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818 (part I)

The Earth-Sun distance was first estimated to be somewhere around 25 km (in stark contrast to the 3000 mi distance claimed by the UA proponents). Using a variety of proofs, estimates and calculations, that distance was reduced to 12-15 km. Now, more proofs showing that this distance can be even lower, some 10 km.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The height of Mt. Everest has to be lower than the official estimate since the basic triangulation method does not take into account the different refractive indexes for each layer of aether and ether.


Chicken Little ... Sky is falling ...  by KidsFun

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #187 on: November 23, 2019, 10:23:08 PM »
I should have addressed the question to sandokhan. I want his answer.
He uses it so much.
Thanks.
So sorry ;D! I'd love to see that answer too, but he'll have his excuses.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #188 on: November 23, 2019, 10:37:12 PM »
So in the video

Yes, in the video while the pilot is claiming that the airplane is at cruising speed, the author is filming a balloon which can be seen right below. He called the owner of the balloon and found out that the maximum altitude is 4,000 ft.


I can if there is some other explanation for "NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites".

Everyone here is laughing at you.

You simply do not understand what is going on.

You are refusing to accept reality.

The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT proves that IF the orbital Sagnac and the solar gravitational effect are MISSING, then the local-ether model exists.

No other options are available.

That is why Dr. C.C. Su was forced to accept this local-ether model, because otherwise the Earth is stationary.

Dr. C.C. Su is forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL only because he cannot accept Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Certainly one has to give up Einstein's version of relativity and totally embrace Lorentz' ether model.

Einstein's relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You need to the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL to even try to approach this problem.

And you might know this paper by Grigorii B Malykin an authir that YOU has resorted to. the abstract to his "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations" by Grigorii B Malykin is:

Dr. A.G. Kelly proved that G. Malykin was wrong on this one.

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

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

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

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

page 8

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

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

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

to = t'γ

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

to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)


dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)

dtR = relativity time ratio



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

dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)


dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)


dtS = Sagnac ratio


dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)

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


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


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


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


Now, I want everyone here, especially the RE, to be witnesses of this statement.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.

Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime in such a way that a geodesic, ie the path taken by an object in free-fall, is curved ever so slightly towards that massive object, the Earth.

Completely wrong.

HERE IS THE DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors stipulate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.

Therefore, everything that follows, Einstein's field equations, are based on the SAME ASSUMPTION.

And G is valid only here on Earth, not anywhere else.

That is why Hermann Weyl added the AFFINE CONNECTION/NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY in order to apply relativity to dynamical situations. AFFINE CONNECTION = ETHER FIELD.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

Proven in the above paper.


Now, let us go back to this statement, witnessed by all of you here.

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

Then, there is NO general relativity at all either.

What "missing orbital Sagnac"?

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.


« Last Edit: November 23, 2019, 10:41:25 PM by sandokhan »

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #189 on: November 23, 2019, 10:55:41 PM »
Sandokhan, how dare you peddle your faulty wares here? You tried to convince a peer group on another forum, and got locked out, right? So even though you know you are wrong, you continue as if it makes it okay?

*

JackBlack

  • 17271
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #190 on: November 23, 2019, 11:10:18 PM »
It took less than ten minutes for you to start fabricate meaningless responses.
No, that would be you, repeatedly.

Now how about you try and back up your wild claims?
No where in those mountains of off topic spam do you make any attempt at justifying your claims.
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #191 on: November 23, 2019, 11:24:29 PM »
I have already explained each and everyone of these phenomenons: the local-ether model, Newton's explanation for the refraction of light (variable speed of light).

All it takes is to prove that the speed of light is superluminal: the original set of Maxwell's equation IS INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

But you are unable to accept these clear facts.

I even posted the references to the GERSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT, the conversion of photons into gravitons.

Yet, you are not here to debate or to listen.

You are in no position to ask for anything since you cannot even explain terrestrial gravity at all.

Where is your explanation for having four trillion billion liters of water staying glued to the outer surface of a sphere?
Where is your explanation for the attractive mechanism of gravity?

Where is your explanation for the missing orbital Sagnac effect?
Where is your explanation for the fact that the Biefeld-Brown effect defies newtonian mechanics?
Where is your explanation for Kepler's fabricated data?

*

JackBlack

  • 17271
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #192 on: November 23, 2019, 11:56:33 PM »
I have already explained each and everyone of these phenomenons
Can you read English?
If you could, you would know that I am not just asking for explanations, I am also asking for evidence.
You are yet to provide any evidence for your insane claims.

Also, you haven't explained what has been asked of you.

the speed of light is superluminal
Are you aware that is literally a direct contradiction?
You are saying the speed of light is faster than the speed of light, i.e. c>c.
This makes no sense at all.

the original set of Maxwell's equation
Are a collection of equations which cannot be used to make any insane claims about the very question of their applicability.

I even posted the references
Again, linking to yourself is not providing a reference.

You are in no position to ask for anything since you cannot even explain <off topic>
As already explained, as you are making a bunch of baseless claims, I am in a perfectly valid position to ask you for explanations and evidence.
You not liking the explanations and evidence for this quite unrelated to the topic at hand is irrelavent.

<More pathetic off topic garbage>
If you want to discuss all that off topic garbage, go make a thread on it.

If you want to discuss something in this thread, then try keeping it on topic.
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?

You repeatedly needing to avoid these with off topic garbage just shows you have no case.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #193 on: November 24, 2019, 12:04:32 AM »
I am also asking for evidence.
You are yet to provide any evidence for your claims.

You are saying the speed of light is faster than the speed of light, i.e. c>c.
This makes no sense at all.


Let me show you just how wrong you are.

Then, it follows that you are just as wrong about everything else.

I have already provided the proofs for the existence of the Dome (local-ether model), the modified speed of light to Venus (Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect), the variable speed of light model of Newton for the refraction.

But you are here only to deny, not to listen.

Fine.

Here is the direct proof that the original set of equations of Maxwell is indeed INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

The derivation starts exactly from the integral equations published by two of the top textbooks of the 20th century:

Arnold S (1971) Electrodynamics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Academic Press, USA
Smirnov VI (2014) A course of higher mathematics. Pergamon Press, USA

Maxwell's equations in integral form.

Then, it's a straightforward calculation:

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:











as what you claim of Einstein

This is what Einstein claimed:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

A. Einstein, 1905

Not Maxwell's equations, but the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ EQUATIONS.

Maxwell's original set of equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS, as has been directly proven in the above derivation.

The Heaviside-Lorentz equations apply only to a static system.

Maxwell's original set of equations apply to dynamical systems as well.



insane claims

You repeatedly needing to avoid these with off topic garbage just shows you have no case.


The first thing you have to explain is terrestrial gravity.

Yet you are unable to do so.

Nothing is more insane, scientifically, than to claim that four billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #194 on: November 24, 2019, 12:05:57 AM »
So in the video

Yes, in the video while the pilot is claiming that the airplane is at cruising speed, the author is filming a balloon which can be seen right below. He called the owner of the balloon and found out that the maximum altitude is 4,000 ft.
And that video is made by a complete retard that claims that planes run on compressed air etc, etc and YOU believe it ::).

Quote from: sandokhan
I can if there is some other explanation for "NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites".

Everyone here is laughing at you.

You simply do not understand what is going on.

You are refusing to accept reality.
No, that's you and I suspect that it's you that "everyone here is laughing at"!

Quote from: sandokhan
The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT proves that IF the orbital Sagnac and the solar gravitational effect are MISSING, then the local-ether model exists.

No other options are available.
Really? Try General Relativity.

Quote from: sandokhan
That is why Dr. C.C. Su was forced to accept this local-ether model, because otherwise the Earth is stationary.
Dr. C.C. Su is forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL only because he cannot accept Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Certainly one has to give up Einstein's version of relativity and totally embrace Lorentz' ether model.
Try  one has to give up using Einstein Special Relativity in case where General RElativity is necessary as Grigorii B Malykin clearly states.

Quote from: sandokhan
Einstein's relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
Try Einstein's Special Relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Quote from: sandokhan
And you might know this paper by Grigorii B Malykin an author that YOU has resorted to. the abstract to his "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations" by Grigorii B Malykin is:

Dr. A.G. Kelly proved that G. Malykin was wrong on this one.
He did - where? I think I'll accept G. Malykin, thank you!
Ir appears that neither you nor Dr. A.G. Kelly have heard of general Relativity!

Quote from: sandokhan
The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.
STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.
That is why General Relativity is needed for an accurate analysis! Try General relativistic Sagnac formula revised by Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri

Quote from: sandokhan
The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.
The Sagnac effect can be analysed approximately as a non-relativistic effect but General Relativity is needed to do that accurately..

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, I want everyone here, especially the RE, to be witnesses of this statement.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.

Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime in such a way that a geodesic, ie the path taken by an object in free-fall, is curved ever so slightly towards that massive object, the Earth.

Completely wrong.
Incorrect! And you own reference explains that quite thoroughly! Try actually reading it!

Quote from: sandokhan
HERE IS THE DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity
No, that is NOT a "DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION".
Had you even read the title or better read the paper you'd note that said "From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity" and NOT "DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION".

Quote from: sandokhan
From the very start, section 2, the authors stipulate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.
OK, so what?

Quote from: sandokhan
Therefore, everything that follows, Einstein's field equations, are based on the SAME ASSUMPTION.
Rubbish, because Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava do not derive Einstein's Theory of General Relativity from Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation.

Quote from: sandokhan
And G is valid only here on Earth, not anywhere else.
Rubbish! Your own references, including  Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava all use G as a Fundamental Universal Constant.

Quote from: sandokhan
That is why Hermann Weyl added the AFFINE CONNECTION/NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY in order to apply relativity to dynamical situations. AFFINE CONNECTION = ETHER FIELD.
Stop putting your own twisted interpretations into your references!
Quote
Spacetime is not a medium in the sense of the old ether concept. No ether in that sense exists here. Just as the electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium but constitute independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, so, according to Weyl, the geometrical fields are independent irreducible physical fields.

Quote from: sandokhan
General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

Proven in the above paper.
No! And if YOU think that is "Proven in the above paper" you either haven't read or haven't understood that paper.
General Relativity does NOT rely on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL but it does reduce to giving the same reults for low velocities and low enough masses.


Quote from: sandokhan
Now, let us go back to this statement, witnessed by all of you here.

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!
I'll again ignore LISA because it's geometry is nothing like that of the GNSS.

Now stop wasting everybody's time.
But you could explain exactly your calculations leading your Sun being 600 m in diameter and 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or is it 10 km above the Earth.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #195 on: November 24, 2019, 12:28:38 AM »
Why are you asking JackBlack? Most of this has been explained plenty of times!

I even posted the references to the GERSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT, the conversion of photons into gravitons.
And what was the relevance of that? I didn't think you believed in relativity? have you had a change of heart or not even read the papers on it?

Quote from: sandokhan
Yet, you are not here to debate or to listen.
You must be joking! When you explain how you calculated you Sun's size and distance I might listen till then - not a chance!

Quote from: sandokhan
You are in no position to ask for anything since you cannot even explain terrestrial gravity at all.
Maybe JackBlack hasn't but I have and YOU refused to agree even though you own references seem to suourt my explanations.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for having four trillion billion liters of water staying glued to the outer surface of a sphere?
For a start "four trillion billion liters of water" DO NOT "stay glued to the outer surface of a sphere"! You cannot glue water!

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the attractive mechanism of gravity?[/b][/color]
I don't have one because gravitation is an inertial force, not an attractive force.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the missing orbital Sagnac effect?
Maybe if you believed General Relativity you might find that there is none! C.C. Su found no "missing orbital Sagnac effect" with his local-ether model.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the fact that the Biefeld-Brown effect defies newtonian mechanics?
I don't have to because it is quite unproven in a perfect vacuum.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for Kepler's fabricated data?
I don't need to. Whatever the case with Kepler's data it hasn't the slightest effect anything now. The motion of the planets is calculated using Newtonian Mechanics and/or General Relativity with nothing from Kepler.

JackBlack will probably have better answers because he's the scientist, not I!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #196 on: November 24, 2019, 12:32:38 AM »
You are trolling this forum.

Proving my point to the admin and to the mods: you are here only to deny, nothing else.

It's a little game to you.

And that video is made by a complete retard that claims that planes run on compressed air etc, etc and YOU believe it

The author of the video PROVES that the actual altitude of the airplane is some 7,000 ft at most.

He is filming the balloon right below, while at the same time he has an altimeter to prove it.

Don't you get it?

The cabin pressure IS the actual reading of the altitude.

He called the owner of the balloon and proved it.

Try Einstein's Special Relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You cannot.

Both Dr. A.G. Kelly and Dr. Post PROVE THAT the Sagnac effect is non-relativistic effect.

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

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

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

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

page 8

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

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

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

to = t'γ

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

to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)


dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)

dtR = relativity time ratio



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

dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)


dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)


dtS = Sagnac ratio


dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)

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


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


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


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


See how easy it is to debunk your misinformed claims?


That is why General Relativity is needed for an accurate analysis! Try General relativistic Sagnac formula revised by Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri

The main term is the CORIOLIS EFFECT, followed by corrections.

Here is the entire discussion:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83165.msg2203699#msg2203699

No, that is NOT a "DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION".
Had you even read the title or better read the paper you'd note that said "From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity" and NOT "DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION".


You are showing to everyone that you know nothing of Newtonian mechanics.

Nothing at all.

Newton's law of gravitation is developed into the POISSON EQUATION, then Einstein's field equations follow quite easily.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf


In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-bystep generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we
obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is
Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field.



Rubbish, because Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava do not derive Einstein's Theory of General Relativity from Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation.

I have quoted you from the paper the statements which do prove that the authors derived the Einstein field gravitational equation directly from Newton's law of gravitation.

Which means you are denying reality.

You are trolling this forum.


Stop putting your own twisted interpretations into your references!




General Relativity does NOT rely on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL but it does reduce to giving the same reults for low velocities and low enough masses.

But it does exactly that: as proven in the paper I just referenced.

In most presentations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity[8] his gravitational field equation is given in tensor form as embodying some general principles.
It is then shown that in the limit of weak gravity and small speeds it reduces to
Newtonian gravity.[9, 10, 11, 12] This top-down approach makes it difficult for
the student to understand the gravitational field equation. In this paper we use
a bottom-up approach to obtain Einstein’s field equation from Newton’s universal
gravitation.

TGR is derived directly from Newton's law of attractive gravitation, using the Poisson equation.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf


In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-bystep generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we
obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is
Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field.



You have just been proven WRONG.

*

Stash

  • 10023
  • I am car!
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #197 on: November 24, 2019, 12:32:46 AM »
So in the video

Yes, in the video while the pilot is claiming that the airplane is at cruising speed, the author is filming a balloon which can be seen right below. He called the owner of the balloon and found out that the maximum altitude is 4,000 ft.

No, actually in the video the GUY, Enslaved By No Media, is claiming that the pilot is saying they just dropped to 36k ft to avoid turbulence. Then he cuts to the balloon. It's just him saying that, we never hear the pilot or any other evidence. Based upon his idiocy elsewhere, claiming that they are at 7000 ft when he's reading the cabin pressure of the plane and trying to pass it off as altitude, among his many other erroneous claims, it seems all made up.

And I have a million better examples proving that he is making it up. If you would like me to spill them all here I'll make your longest copy/paste post look like a paragraph. Just let me know.

So like I said, if you want to hang your hat on this guy and his ridiculously uninformed video as a premise for your theories feel free to lessen your credibility accordingly. Is that really what you want to do?

Now, how do planes not burst into flames when they are flying a mere 10k feet from the Sun?
"Corn grows without tossing a girl down the well?"
"Oh, that makes sense." . . . . .
. . . . . "Turns out, it's the god of rain that's in charge."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #198 on: November 24, 2019, 12:35:01 AM »
No, actually in the video the GUY, Enslaved By No Media, is claiming that the pilot is saying they just dropped to 36k ft to avoid turbulence. Then he cuts to the balloon. It's just him saying that, we never hear the pilot or any other evidence.

That is exactly what happened.

claiming that they are at 7000 ft when he's reading the cabin pressure of the plane and trying to pass it off as altitude

The cabin pressure is the actual altitude of the plane.

He is filming the balloon right below, at the same time.

The maximum altitude for that balloon is 4,000 ft.

*

Stash

  • 10023
  • I am car!
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #199 on: November 24, 2019, 12:38:05 AM »
No, actually in the video the GUY, Enslaved By No Media, is claiming that the pilot is saying they just dropped to 36k ft to avoid turbulence. Then he cuts to the balloon. It's just him saying that, we never hear the pilot or any other evidence.

That is exactly what happened.

claiming that they are at 7000 ft when he's reading the cabin pressure of the plane and trying to pass it off as altitude

The cabin pressure is the actual altitude of the plane.

He is filming the balloon right below, at the same time.

The maximum altitude for that balloon is 4,000 ft.

How is the cabin pressure the actual altitude of the plane? You've never heard of a pressurized cabin?

Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video? If so, just say the word 'go'.
"Corn grows without tossing a girl down the well?"
"Oh, that makes sense." . . . . .
. . . . . "Turns out, it's the god of rain that's in charge."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #200 on: November 24, 2019, 12:40:08 AM »
For a start "four trillion billion liters of water" DO NOT "stay glued to the outer surface of a sphere"! You cannot glue water!

They are GLUED to the outer surface of a sphere in your fantasy world.

However, you are unable to explain how this happens.

I don't have one because gravitation is an inertial force, not an attractive force.

You can no longer make this claim.

Newton's law of gravitation is developed into the POISSON EQUATION, then Einstein's field equations follow quite easily.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf


In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we
obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field.



C.C. Su found no "missing orbital Sagnac effect" with his local-ether model.

Let's put your word to the test.

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.

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.


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).

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.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #201 on: November 24, 2019, 12:47:09 AM »
Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video?

Please explain to your readers how 210 tons of fuel are deposited in the jet plane:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376

For your information, the jet engine was invented by VIKTOR SCHAUBERGER, using double torsion physics.



In documents dated 1941, V. Schauberger describes how Professor Ernst Heinkel, the designer of the first successful jet-plane (first flight 27 Aug 1939), had illegally obtained sight of Viktor's preliminary applications at the Patent Office in Berlin through his patent attorneys, Lehmann-Harlens. Having studied them carefully, Heinkel then expressed his disinterest in them, but immediately inaugurated a covert research programme using this information in modified form to improve the performance of his 1,000 kph fighter, most probably the He 280. This was an indictable infringement of Viktor's still confidential application. Wishing to avoid discovery and in order to continue to make use of the unlawfully obtained data, Heinkel fraudulently attempted to have Viktor's patent restricted to the conversion of sea water into fresh water only, by having its application to aircraft and submarine propulsion disallowed.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170611101930/http://free-energy.xf.cz/SCHAUBERGER/Living_Energies.pdf

The story goes like this, as narrated by Schauberger and from his letter-correspondence:

At some point in time Schauberger met Heinkel. He mentioned his special "Turbine" for propulsion which shall have an extraordinary performance. Heinkel was interested and Schauberger explained the engine to him, drew sketches etc. He then said to Heinkel, that if he's interested in building a prototype, then he shall contact him for making an arrangement. But he didn't hear anything from him anymore, so he thought that Heinkel wasn't interested.

Much later Schauberger heard through the SS, that Heinkel actually built a prototype which flew over 1000km/h, but which had frequent completely unpredictable engine stalls, and that their technicians are out of ideas of how to fix this. When they explained to him, how Heinkel made the Piston-Engine/Turbine aggregate, he said, that he knew immediately what Heinkel was doing wrong, and that in this arrangement an engine stall would be logic.

http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/frankgermano_net/viktorschauberger_5.htm

Although Heinkel never had the honesty to reveal the source of the ideas for his invention, keeping all the kudos for himself, this jet plane was nevertheless built as a direct result of Viktor's theories. Viktor Schauberger is therefore the real father of the present jet age . He even went as far as to state that in order to develop and build fast-flying, supersonic aircraft successfully, the bodily forms of deep-sea fish should be copied. Today's 'stealth bombers' very much emulate these forms.

Viktor Schauberger patents:

http://www.rexresearch.com/schaub/schaub.htm#117749

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20871
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #202 on: November 24, 2019, 12:54:11 AM »

Astronomers at the McDonald Observatory in Texas have been laser ranging the Moon for over 40 years.  I know that because when I went to the Texas Star Party which is held just a few miles away at the Prude Guest Ranch they organise tours of the observatory. During my particular visit the Moon was in the sky and they were able to demonstrate how its done and show us the result.  Takes just over 2.5 seconds for the laser to travel to the Moon and back again.

Distance is speed x time so 300,000km/s x 2.56 seconds.  You do the maths...

I saw Penn and Teller in Las Vegas.


*

Stash

  • 10023
  • I am car!
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #203 on: November 24, 2019, 01:08:15 AM »
Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video?

Please explain to your readers how 210 tons of fuel are deposited in the jet plane:

Like this:



I've got a million more. Do you really want to hang your reputation on that guy and his absolutely, demonstrably, devastatingly ridiculous video? If you do, ok. But you do realize it greatly diminishes your authority as a scientist. It puts you in the league of simply a hack. Your choice. Let me know.

And let me know how planes around the planet are not on fire because they are too close to you 15km high sun.
"Corn grows without tossing a girl down the well?"
"Oh, that makes sense." . . . . .
. . . . . "Turns out, it's the god of rain that's in charge."

*

JackBlack

  • 17271
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #204 on: November 24, 2019, 01:16:47 AM »
Let me show you just how wrong you are.
Go ahead.
Tell us how something can be faster than itself.


Then, it follows that you are just as wrong about everything else.
No, it doesn't.
Do you understand logical reasoning at all?
Someone being wrong about one thing doesn't automagically make them wrong about everything.

I have already provided the proofs for the existence of the Dome
No, you haven't.
You haven't provided proof of anything except your complete inability to rationally debate.

Here is the direct proof that the original set of equations
You can provide all the equations you want, it doesn't magically make these equations an accurate description of reality.
Showing a derivation, based upon assumptions will not help you at all.
You need evidence from REALITY that shows this to be true.

You making one assumption to try and pretend these equations prove something is no better than someone making a different assumption and having it show something else.
It proves nothing.

I already pointed that out, but of course, you completely ignored that.

The first thing you have to explain is <off topic>
If you want someone to help you with that, why don't you go start a thread on it?

You have come here making a bunch of insane claims.
Now rather than try and defend them, you just deflect.
You aren't even just shifting the burden of proof to try and have people prove you wrong, you are instead trying to completely derail the topic.

Now how about you try dealing with the topic and either defending your insane claims or admitting they are completely baseless?
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #205 on: November 24, 2019, 01:51:53 AM »
You can provide all the equations you want, it doesn't magically make these equations an accurate description of reality.
Showing a derivation, based upon assumptions will not help you at all.
You need evidence from REALITY that shows this to be true.


You are trolling the upper forums.

This is the EXACT SET OF EQUATIONS published by J.C. Maxwell, which are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

You ARE refusing to accept reality.

The derivation starts exactly from the integral equations published by two of the top textbooks of the 20th century:

Arnold S (1971) Electrodynamics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Academic Press, USA
Smirnov VI (2014) A course of higher mathematics. Pergamon Press, USA

Maxwell's equations in integral form.

Then, it's a straightforward calculation:

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:











as what you claim of Einstein

This is what Einstein claimed:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

A. Einstein, 1905

Not Maxwell's equations, but the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ EQUATIONS.

Maxwell's original set of equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS, as has been directly proven in the above derivation.

The Heaviside-Lorentz equations apply only to a static system.

Maxwell's original set of equations apply to dynamical systems as well.


CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?



Superluminal speeds proven right here for you.

Which means Newton's explanation for the refraction of beams through a prism is correct.

You haven't provided proof of anything except your complete inability to rationally debate.


But I have.

I have provided the references which PROVE the existence of the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.

This ether is located above the atmosphere.

This is the Dome itself.

As for the speed of light to Venus, I have provided the GERSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVISH EFFECT, where photons are converted into gravitons in the presence of a strong magnetic field.


You have come here making a bunch of insane claims.

Nothing is more insane than claiming that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place on the outside surface of a sphere for five billion years.

Take a look at yourself: you are unable to provide any kind of an explanation for terrestrial gravity.

You are unable to explain the insane claim that water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the outside surface of a sphere.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #206 on: November 24, 2019, 01:57:41 AM »
Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video?

Please explain to your readers how 210 tons of fuel are deposited in the jet plane:
Is your Google broken?
This is how re-fuelling is done: Schiphol: How planes are refuelled

That is from I massive underground system of fuel pipes.


Quote
StackExchange,  AVIATION: How much fuel does an A380 hold and where?

The capacities of different tanks are1 (in liters):
  • Tail tank: 23,698
  • Inner tanks: 90,600
  • Mid tanks: 72,000
  • Feed tank 2 and 3: 28,130 each
  • Feed tank 1 and 4: 26,974 each
  • Outer tanks: 9,524 each

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376
I'll ignore that bit of unfounded misinformation!

Quote from: sandokhan
For your information, the jet engine was invented by VIKTOR SCHAUBERGER, using double torsion physics.
For your information you are a few decades too late!
Quote
Maxime Guillaume

In aerospace, Maxime Guillaume held a French patent for a turbojet engine in 1921.

The first patent for using a gas turbine to power an aircraft was filed in 1921 by Frenchman Maxime Guillaume. ," French patent no. 534,801 (filed: 3 May 1921; issued: 13 January 1922).[1] His engine was to be an axial-flow turbojet, but was never constructed, as it would have required considerable advances over the state of the art in compressors.
[img wifth=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Guillaume%27s_1921_Axial_Flow_Jet_Engine.tiff/lossless-page1-440px-Guillaume%27s_1921_Axial_Flow_Jet_Engine.tiff.png[/img]
from Page 3 of Guillaume's patent

References
"Propulseur par réaction sur l'air" (in French). Espace.net. 3 April 1922. Retrieved 11 January 2013.
Then read this!
Quote
Whittle W.1X Engine.

Sir Frank Whittle's jet aircraft engine was patented in 1932, and Power Jets, Ltd. formed in 1936. The Whittle Unit bench test engine first ran on April 12, 1937. In 1939, the British Air Ministry placed a contract for the W.1 engine to be flight tested on the new Gloster E.28/39 aircraft. During taxiing tests, the W.1X non-airworthy engine unofficially became the first British turbojet to be airborne when the E.28/39 made short, straight hops. The W.1 flew officially in the E.28/39 on May 15, 1941.

The W.1X and drawings of the W.2B production engine were delivered to the General Electric Company on October 1, 1941. GE's improved and uprated version, the IA, powered the first U.S. jet aircraft, the Bell XP-59A Airacomet on October 2, 1942. At the end of its useful life, the W.1X was returned to England. On November 8, 1949, the W.1X was presented to the Smithsonian by Power Jets, Ltd.
Whittle patented the operational jet engine first but Hans von Ohain and the Jet Engine of Henkel designed the first one flown.
Quote
Hans von Ohain and the Jet Engine
The HeS.3B engine was installed in the He-178 airplane and the first turbojet-powered aircraft made its first flight on August 27th, 1939 at Heinkel Airfield near Rostock, Germany.[1] The pilot on this historic first flight of a jet-powered airplane was Flight Captain Erich Warsitz. A number of weeks after the first flight, Adolf Hitler was persuaded to observe a demonstration. Ohain stated that he seemed unfriendly, icy cold and unwell. He asked an assistant what was wrong. The assistant said that the demonstration had been too early, because “the Führer does not like to get out of bed before 11 a.m.” Hitler did not see the need for a new aircraft engine, commenting “why is it necessary to fly faster than the speed of sound?” 

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #207 on: November 24, 2019, 02:04:16 AM »
Sun at 10 kilometers, and not enough fuel carried by planes.

Well, at least stuff like this acts as a strong case for RE.

*

Macarios

  • 2092
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #208 on: November 24, 2019, 02:38:21 AM »
Agua Branca do Amapari, Brazil: 52 degrees west
Maua, Kenya: 38 degrees east
Distance between them: 10 000 km
Time: UTC 12h 28m
Sun seen from Agua Branca: 45 degrees above east horizon
Sun seen from Maua: 45 degrees above west horizon

Now you have your triangle, show us your "Sun above ground for about 10 km". :)
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.

*

JackBlack

  • 17271
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #209 on: November 24, 2019, 02:46:00 AM »
You are trolling the upper forums.
You mean you are, as you always do.

This is the EXACT SET OF EQUATIONS published by J.C. Maxwell
Really? The exact set? Not any derivation based upon them and other assumptions? Because you have repeatedly stated it is a derivation, based upon an assumption. Such as here:

It follows from the assumption

Do you know what that means?
It isn't the original set of equations.
Instead it is a derivation based upon an assumption.
If that assumption is false then the conclusion is false.
More importantly, this assumption is effectively the very thing you are trying to prove by using these equations.
This means it is an entirely circular argument.

So you can do all you want with those equations, it still proves nothing and is in no way evidence of your claims.
It is no better than assuming 1>2, to try and prove 1>2.

Which means Newton's explanation for the refraction of beams through a prism is correct.
Why don't you provide an explanation yourself, which actually deals with the questions raised, because you are yet to address those questions at all.
Until you do, you have no explanation at all.

Again if you want to appeal to Newton, that means accepting Earth is a rotating round object which orbits the sun, i.e. you are completely wrong.
If you are rejecting that, then you are rejecting Newton and thus it is pointless to try and appeal to his authority.

I have provided the references
Again, links to more of your ramblings is not a valid reference.

You have come here making a bunch of insane claims.
Nothing is more insane than claiming that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place on the outside surface of a sphere for five billion years.
And you seem to be the one repeatedly bringing up that claim as well. You were the first to mention it in this thread.
So yet another insane claim from you.

Again stop trying to troll and spam with off topic nonsense and actually deal with the issues of this thread.
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?