The earth rotation

  • 101 Replies
  • 6760 Views
*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #90 on: January 19, 2020, 12:54:14 AM »
No.

Multiple arguments, amply evidenced throughtout these years during the debates.

The paper you presented displays a formula which features the area. That is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

If you want the SAGNAC EFFECT, you need a formula which DOES NOT feature the area.

Can you comprehend this much?

SSB, ECI does not matter in the least.

SAME FORMULA APPLIES.

Do you see a different formula being applied by ESA/CALTECH? Of course not.

Your silly argument does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Stick to Earth?

Ok.

Let us now imagine that the Earth is the size of the path of the LISA SPACE ANTENNA.

That is, now the LISA interferometer will be located on the surface of that Earth.

What do you have now? BOTH CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

The interferometer will be subjected to both the CORIOLIS and to the SAGNAC effects.

TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH.

Odd that you continually cite LISA, a NASA/ESA project predicated on a probe launched from a rotating globe earth orbiting the sun. How do you square that?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #91 on: January 19, 2020, 01:02:46 AM »
How can you have a globe orbit the Sun if the GPS satellites do not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?

This is the paradox which ESA/CALTECH must resolve/answer: their calculations, the best in the world, plainly and clearly prove that the ORBITAL SAGNAC effect is MUCH GREATER than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Same principle applies to GPS satellites.

Do you now understand why, as a last resort, modern mainstream science has started to embrace the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL?

They do not even understand the proper consequences of this action.

Since now the local-ether model is acknowledged to exist, the same scientists have to deal with these statements attributed to Einstein:

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #92 on: January 19, 2020, 01:16:49 AM »
How can you have a globe orbit the Sun if the GPS satellites do not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?

How can you continually cite LISA, a NASA/ESA project predicated on a probe launched from a rotating globe earth orbiting the sun? You know you can't have it both ways, right?
What sort of hypocrisy are you aiming for? Citing LISA, irrelevant to the fact that RLG's measure the Sagnac Effect notwithstanding, yet you claim a rotating globe earth doesn't orbit the sun? You do realize that LISA is designed to orbit the sun, much like a globe earth, like this:



Is LISA real? Or do you need to rework your irrelevant citation of it?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #93 on: January 19, 2020, 02:06:46 AM »
You have been reduced to total silence.
When you ignore what is said, it sure must seem like silence.
But to everyone else who isn't choosing to be wilfully ignorant they can see that is not the case at all.

In most debates, it is the contention of some physicists that for a circular coil with N turns, there will be a term featuring the area in the SAGNAC EFFECT formula; then N would be multiplied by the circumference of the circular coil and by the radius, even though there is no area at all, just a segment light path.
However, this is completely wrong.
Then you should easily be able to prove that.
But you can't.
The formula from the reference you provided equates to an area, not a linear velocity. There is also no single linear velocity for the entire loop unless it is rotating about its centre.

Go and find a citation which claims the Sagnac effect for a simple ring interferometer rotating about a point outside it, is based upon the tangential velocity of that rotation.
Not any reference, but one coming from the JET PROPULSION LABORATORY.
Which in no way says what you are claiming.
Try again.

Then why does it clearly state that it is the Sagnac shift?
Because of the confusion created by Albert Michelson in 1925, when he claimed that his formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation.
The only one it seems to have confused is you.

Stoke's theorem guarantees that they MUST be the same.
This new situation requires the R/L factor evidenced by the calculations put forth for LISA
No, it doesn't. That would be a direct contradiction of stoke's theorem.

Again, your misintrepretation of LISA has nothing at all to do with this thread, unless you are planning on accepting that Earth is round and orbiting the sun.

It isn't say there is some magic new formula, it is simply saying that the actual shift for this HYPOTHETICAL ARRAY is larger than previously assumed.

They prove that there will ALWAYS be two effects to deal with: CORIOLIS and SAGNAC.
No, they don't.
You are yet to provide a single instance which actually says that.

FOG, PCMs, RLGs, LISA are all light interferometers.
Which behave in fundamentally different ways and thus can have fundamentally different formulas.

Multiple arguments, amply evidenced throughtout these years during the debates.
Yes, and you just then just reject it all, by appealing to the same authorities you reject and blatantly misrepresent what the papers say.

You repeatedly asserting the same fictional garbage will not make it true.

Like I said, go back to any of the countless threads you have already been repeatedly refuted in and try and actually provide a derivation.

All the evidence shows you are wrong and that there is only one shift, one effect that will be detected by a FOG or the like, regardless of where the centre of rotation is.

Either accept the authorities entirely accepting that Earth is a round, rotating planet, which orbits Sol, or stop bringing them up and provide your own derivation.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #94 on: January 19, 2020, 02:51:12 AM »
The formula published by Dr. Ruyong Wang contains only the velocity. NO area.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf






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).

Formula: 2VL

Exactly as I claimed.


All of you here have to deal with the TWO FORMULAS for the same interferometer, published by ESA and CALTECH.

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).

Published in the Physical Review D

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 formula is 2VL/c.


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.

The formula used for the ORBITAL SAGNAC (difference in path lengths) is 2VL/c, V = RΩ.


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.




TWO FORMULAS: ONE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE AREA (CORIOLIS), THE OTHER ONE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE VELOCITY (SAGNAC).

THE RATIO OF THE FORMULAS IS R/L.


Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #95 on: January 19, 2020, 03:05:21 AM »
The formula published by Dr. Ruyong Wang contains only the velocity.
Yes, that particular one, only a SINGLE velocity, so it clearly isn't describing a FOG rotating about a point outside its geometric centre, as if it was there would not just be a single velocity.

Instead it is describing one rotating about its geometric centre, where the 2 formulae are identical and which proves nothing like you claim.

Again, there are plenty of references, including plenty that you have provided, which clearly shows the formula is based upon the area and angular velocity.

In fact, that includes the paper you just cited, which you have dishonestly cut off.
What is the first formula presented in the paper (the actual paper, not the abstract which discussing the FOC)?
Deltat=4*A*Omega/c^2.

So are you going to accept your reference which clearly shows it is based upon an  area and an angular velocity? Or will you continue to reject it?

But as I said before, if you want to use any of those references, first admit that Earth is a round, rotating planet orbiting the sun.

If you aren't willing to do that, stop appealing to authorities you are blatantly misrepresenting, effectively lying about them (and some times directly lying about them).

Now like I said, if you wish to disagree, go back to the countless threads you have already been refuted on and show an actual problem with my derivation (not just ridiculing it) and provide your own from first principles.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #96 on: January 19, 2020, 03:41:02 AM »
Modern science can no longer ignore the calculations performed for the LISA SPACE ANTENNA.

University of Cambridge

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.0392.pdf

The influence of Earth rotation in neutrino speed measurements between CERN and the OPERA detector

Markus G. Kuhn
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

"As the authors did not indicate whether and how they took into account the Coriolis or Sagnac effect that Earth’s rotation has on the (southeastwards traveling) neutrinos, this brief note quantifies this effect.

And the resulting Coriolis effect (in optics also known as Sagnac effect) should be taken into account."

Dr. Ruyong Wang presents TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY).

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf

Exactly as the calculations performed at ESA/CALTECH.

Exactly as did Dr. Rizzi and Dr. Ruggiero.

Things have changed, they are no longer the same.

Now it dawns on those who study the field of light interferometry that there will always be TWO EFFECTS to deal with for each and every interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation: CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT.

« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 04:47:13 AM by sandokhan »

*

rabinoz

  • 24905
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #97 on: January 19, 2020, 04:20:13 AM »
The formula published by Dr. Ruyong Wang contains only the velocity. NO area.

And it's also not a Sagnac Fibre Optic Gyroscope and Wang does not call it one.
He calls it a Fiber Optic Linear Motion Sensor (FOLMS) and NOT a Sagnac FOG.
And if you look at its layout you can readily see that it is NOT a Fiber Optic Gyroscope and it does not measure any absolute linear motion.

Dr. Ruyong Wang's Fiber Optic Linear Motion Sensor (FOLMS), NOT a Sagnac FOG

Quote from: sandokhan
Generalized Sagnac Effect by Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, and Aiping Yao




<< LISA omitted because it is irrelevant to the rotation of the Earth on its axis >>

*

rabinoz

  • 24905
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #98 on: January 19, 2020, 04:42:56 AM »
For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

"As the authors did not indicate whether and how they took into account the Coriolis or Sagnac effect that Earth’s rotation has on the (southeastwards traveling) neutrinos, this brief note quantifies this effect.

And the resulting Coriolis effect (in optics also known as Sagnac effect) should be taken into account."
Why is that such a mystery?
The southerly component involves no rotation, just a change in surface velocity so is the Coriolis effect.
The easterly component involves no change in the surface velocity but does involve rotation can be looked on as a Sagnac effect.

Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. Ruyong Want presents TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY).
Generalized Sagnac Effect by Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, and Aiping Yao
Who is "Dr. Ruyong Want"? I'll assume that you mean Dr. Ruyong Wag?
Sure Dr. Ruyong Wang presents"TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY)."
But the one that features an area is a Fiber Optic Gyroscope and the other one that does not (only a velocity is NOT a FOG but is a Fiber Optic Linear Motion Sensor (FOLMS).


Quote from: sandokhan
Exactly as the calculations performed at ESA/CALTECH.

Exactly as did Dr. Rizzi and Dr. Ruggiero.

Things have changed, they are no longer the same.

Now it dawns on those who study the field of light interferometry that there will always be TWO EFFECTS to deal with for each and every interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation: CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT.
But it's a pity that you seem to have no clue as to the difference between them.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #99 on: January 19, 2020, 04:49:53 AM »
The difference has been spelled out very clearly by the physicists working at ESA on the LISA project.



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.

TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

FOR LISA, THE SAGNAC PHASE IS 30 TIMES LARGER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.

Which means you haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.


Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #100 on: January 19, 2020, 12:48:25 PM »
Modern science can no longer ignore the calculations performed for the LISA SPACE ANTENNA.
Which in no way support your claims. You are blatantly lying about what it says.

Again, try to find where it clearly declares that there are 2 separate forces, the Coriolis force and the Saganc effect, both of which contribute.

Dr. Ruyong Wang presents TWO FORMULAS FOR THE INTERFEROMETER: ONE FEATURES AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT (ONLY A VELOCITY).
Which are equal. Not 2 magically different shifts, but 2 ways to express the same thing.

But before you just claimed that it was velocity, completely ignoring the fact that your own references provide a formula featuring an area.

The important part you repeatedly overlook is that this is for a FOG rotating about its centre, where there is a single speed for the fibre.
It clearly is not being applied to a ring interferometer rotating about a point away from its centre as then you have multiple velocities to deal with.

As the paper is about FOC, it makes sense that they want to use the form with velocity. But that is not any absolute velocity.

Again, it clearly does not back you up.

For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
You mean just like has been pointed out before, THEY ARE THE SAME THING!

Notice how they aren't saying that it is a fundamentally different effect with a different formula?
NO! They are saying the 2 are the same, that the Coriolis effect for objects is known as the Sagnac effect for light.

i.e. they are showing you are wrong, yet again. But you don't care. Even while directly quoting them for all to see your lie, you still blatantly lie about what they are saying and act like they back you up.

Now it dawns on those who study the field of light interferometry that there will always be TWO EFFECTS to deal with for each and every interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation: CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT.
Again, find a single citation from a reputable source which shows that.
So far all we have to indicate that is yourself.
Meanwhile, the very references you cite instead indicate that they are the same phenomenon.

Again, you are blatantly lying about your own references.

Perhaps a more simple question:
How would you expect such phenomenon to manifest?

Starting nice and simple with experiments everyone can agree on, a circular ring interferometer rotating about its centre.
What shift should be observed?
Is it the Sagnac shift, repeatedly reported to have been observed, with a formula of Deltat=4*A*Omega/c^2, which is equal to 2*v*l/c^2?
Is it the Coriolis effect, with a formula of Deltat=2*v*l/c^2, which is equal to 4*A*Omega/c^2?
Is it both, because they are the same thing?
Or it is both, with both effects manifesting so you have the Sagnac shift, PLUS the Coriolis effect giving a total shift of 8*A*Omega/c^2 = 4*v*l/c^2, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED?

A related question is what effect does the geometry of the loop has?
Does changing it from a circle to a square effect the shift? No.
So does that mean the formula you claim is for the Sagnac effect is actually variable and dependent upon the shape of the loop such that it always equals the formula you claim is just for the Coriolis effect?

*

rabinoz

  • 24905
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The earth rotation
« Reply #101 on: January 19, 2020, 02:32:36 PM »
TWO FORMULAS TO DEAL WITH: CORIOLIS AND SAGNAC.

FOR LISA, THE SAGNAC PHASE IS 30 TIMES LARGER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.

And what are your expressions for the Sagnac delay (or phase) and the "Coriolis effect"?
Your own reference has "" for the Sagnac Phase, which seems to agree with everybody else but you.
Quote from: K. Rajesh Nayak and J-Y. Vinet
Algebraic Approach to Time-Delay Data Analysisfor Orbiting LISAThe Rigid rotation of LISA triangle with period one year about its own axis results in Sagnac Phase .

And this is the expression for the Coriolis force: . Note this is a vector cross product whereas the Sagnac effect is proportional to the dot (or inner) vector product, quite different!

But none of the papers I've searched have mentioned "Coriolis". Including the above and:
The Effects of Orbital Motion on LISA Time Delay Interferometry by Neil J. Cornish and Ronald W. Hellings.

The only link I've found so far, even between the words is this, which is clearly:
Quote from: Padmanabhan Thanu
World Scientific Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics: Volume 8 "An Invitation to Astrophysics": p11

So why do you try to assert that the wel known Sagnac effect is the Coriolis effect?