Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?

  • 437 Replies
  • 42558 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #390 on: June 29, 2020, 04:16:05 PM »
Sandokhan published results of his research here ;D

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2264696#msg2264696

It is related to topic, and will maybie help ::)
The simple answer to "Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?" is that the GPS does operate to the specified accuracy without any allowance being made for any possible "Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect".
You certainly need tutoring in physics.
Read what Ching-Chuan Su says in the paper YOU referred to again:
Quote from: Ching-Chuan Su
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.
But the present high-precision GPS does operate as specified and Ching-Chuan Su obviously assumes that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun!

If there were significant "missing orbital Sagnac effect" the GNSS satellites would not operate as specified - end of story.

Ching-Chuan Su puts it down to his local-ether model but I would claim GTR but whatever the case there is no significant missing Sagnac effect - get used to it!.


Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #391 on: June 30, 2020, 11:17:14 AM »
If he realy meant it, why did he bring his Aether theory as explenation?

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #392 on: June 30, 2020, 11:19:02 AM »
It is precisely on topic: it is the latest development on the SAGNAC interferometer theory.
Is that why you claimed it was discovered in 1938?
So you are now saying the much more recent work by Wang et al is not a development?

You sure seem to love just making up whatever crap you can.

Again, from how you have presented it, it is nothing more than a twin paradox, where you claim that a twin going around the path counter clockwise ages a different amount than the twin going around clockwise. But who cares? That is already established by the fact that there is a phase shift/time shift between the 2 beams.
This happens in all cases, regardless of if you use a formula with an area or a formula with a length.

Once more, you are just using this as another pathetic distraction to avoid admitting yet another failure.


So I will ask again:
Where is your evidence that a Sagnac effect is observed for absolute linear motion where the entire apparatus moves as one?

Where is your rational response to the fact that your formula predicts a shift between 2 effectively identical light paths, effectively claiming that 2 effectively identical light paths will magically take a different amount of time to complete?

Most of sandokhan's posts are unanswered. Like reply #81 for example
That is because he repeatedly spams off topic garbage which doesn't deserve to be answered.
Meanwhile, he completely avoids questions for him/refutation of his claims, which are entirely on topic.

And here JackBlack admits Kassner effect is real

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #393 on: June 30, 2020, 11:27:45 AM »
And Dufour-Prunier experiment. Sandokhan talked about it in page 4, near end

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #394 on: June 30, 2020, 11:28:49 AM »
It is precisely on topic: it is the latest development on the SAGNAC interferometer theory.
Is that why you claimed it was discovered in 1938?
So you are now saying the much more recent work by Wang et al is not a development?

You sure seem to love just making up whatever crap you can.

Again, from how you have presented it, it is nothing more than a twin paradox, where you claim that a twin going around the path counter clockwise ages a different amount than the twin going around clockwise. But who cares? That is already established by the fact that there is a phase shift/time shift between the 2 beams.
This happens in all cases, regardless of if you use a formula with an area or a formula with a length.

Once more, you are just using this as another pathetic distraction to avoid admitting yet another failure.


So I will ask again:
Where is your evidence that a Sagnac effect is observed for absolute linear motion where the entire apparatus moves as one?

Where is your rational response to the fact that your formula predicts a shift between 2 effectively identical light paths, effectively claiming that 2 effectively identical light paths will magically take a different amount of time to complete?

Most of sandokhan's posts are unanswered. Like reply #81 for example
That is because he repeatedly spams off topic garbage which doesn't deserve to be answered.
Meanwhile, he completely avoids questions for him/refutation of his claims, which are entirely on topic.

And here JackBlack admits Kassner effect is real

He quite clearly states otherwise, and even proves it with papers from Kassner himself.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85840.msg2262369#msg2262369

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #395 on: June 30, 2020, 11:32:09 AM »
Yeah, but my point is that JackBlack said that Kassner eff. Is real, and since he later says it isn't, that makes his word less trusted
I am aware of Kassner's papers. They were debunked. See this thread

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #396 on: June 30, 2020, 11:56:16 AM »
Yeah, but my point is that JackBlack said that Kassner eff. Is real, and since he later says it isn't, that makes his word less trusted
I am aware of Kassner's papers. They were debunked. See this thread

Where does he say it's real? That's not in the quote you provided.

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #397 on: June 30, 2020, 12:03:03 PM »
Yeah, but my point is that JackBlack said that Kassner eff. Is real, and since he later says it isn't, that makes his word less trusted
I am aware of Kassner's papers. They were debunked. See this thread

Where does he say it's real? That's not in the quote you provided.


Here:

Quote
Again, from how you have presented it, it is nothing more than a twin paradox, where you claim that a twin going around the path counter clockwise ages a different amount than the twin going around clockwise. But who cares? :) ((((((That is already established by the fact that there is a phase shift/time shift between the 2 beams.))))))) :)
This happens in all cases, regardless of if you use a formula with an area or a formula with a length.   

I guess he isn't talking about Normal saganac

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #398 on: June 30, 2020, 12:28:08 PM »
I guess he isn't talking about Normal saganac

The question is, what are you talking about then?

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #399 on: June 30, 2020, 02:33:59 PM »
I guess he isn't talking about Normal saganac

No, my bad English strikes again

I guess I am not talkibg about effects of ordinary saganac, but abiut something new to science

The question is, what are you talking about then?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #400 on: June 30, 2020, 03:02:15 PM »
I guess he isn't talking about Normal saganac

No, my bad English strikes again

I guess I am not talkibg about effects of ordinary saganac, but abiut something new to science

The question is, what are you talking about then?

Your english is great. But I still don't know what you're going on about.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #401 on: June 30, 2020, 03:06:52 PM »
Yeah, but my point is that JackBlack said that Kassner eff. Is real, and since he later says it isn't, that makes his word less trusted
I am aware of Kassner's papers. They were debunked. See this thread
Please show exactly where "JackBlack said that Kassner eff. Is real" and "later says it isn't".

But as far as I'm concerned the Kassner effect is no more than a figment of Sandokhan's imagination.

Possibly this is where he first introduced it:
Quote from: Sandokhan
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Message by sandokhan on February 11, 2020, 07:29:26 PM »
KASSNER TIME GAP/DISCONTINUITY: THE CORIOLIS EFFECT IS NOT RELATED TO THE SAGNAC EFFECT

In 1997, Dr. Franco Selleri, one of the top researchers of the Sagnac effect, published the time gap/discontinuity paradox which arises from the application of the Einstein synchronization: the clock on the disk is out of synchronization with itself (equivalently, since time “jumps” a gap between 360° and 0°, one could say time is discontinuous on the rotating disk. Also equivalently, one could say time is multivalued, as a given event has more than one time associated with it).

Actually, the paradox was discovered in 1938 by Dr. Herbert Ives, who proved that ”there are of course not merely two clocks, but an infinity of clocks, where we include those that could be transported at finite speeds, and around other paths. As emphasized previously, the idea of “local time” is untenable, what we have are clock readings. Any number of clock readings at the same place are physically possible, depending on the behaviour and history of the  clocks used. More than one “time” at one place is a physical absurdity.“

The only explanation left, is Langevin’s proposition a) that the light speed varies by c±wr  in one or the other direction around the disk, consistent with Dufour and Prunier’s experimental results."
What Sandokhan calls the "Kassner effect" is more commonly called the "Selleri paradox".

But what Selleri and Sandokhan continually ignore is that a rotating disk is not an "inertial frame of reference".
Selleri and Sandokhan complain the there is this "time gap" in the circumference of the rotating disc.
But they are trying to misapply Einstein's Special Relativity to the rotating disc and a rotating disk is not an "inertial frame of reference".

Of course one would expect problems!

Maybe have a look at:
Super sensitive and hopefully cheap Ring Gyro on a chip « Message by rabinoz on June 16, 2020, 12:24:35 PM »

Super sensitive and hopefully cheap Ring Gyro on a chip « Reply #31 on: June 16, 2020, 11:01:51 PM »



*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #402 on: June 30, 2020, 04:56:52 PM »
And here JackBlack admits Kassner effect is real
Where?
I pointed out his paper is from quite some time ago and appears to be nothing more than the twin paradox.
This is not an effect, nor is it actually a problem.

It is just Sandokhan using whatever sources he can to pretend there is a problem when there is not.
Just like he tries to dishonestly use the work of Yeh and Wang to pretend his formula is correct, even though they are for vastly different setups, and they still accept the correct formula which directly contradicts his formula.


Again, it is a simple of the twin paradox.
The way this was first presented was by having one twin remain on Earth while another twin travels at almost the speed of light to a distant star, then when the reach the star they turn around and head back.
Then the twin on Earth has aged much more than the twin on the space ship.
During the outwards journey, both twins see each other age much more slowly than they appear to age themselves.
On the inwards trip, both appear to age much more rapidly.
So why is there a difference?
Why isn't it symmetrical with both twins ending up the same age?
They key part is the acceleration required to reverse the space ship and send it back to Earth.
This means the twin on Earth has been in a single ~inertial reference frame the entire time, while the twin on the spaceship has been in 2 separate ones.
And it is this use of non-inertial reference frames which causes this apparent paradox.

It is the same issue with Sagnac. It appears to be a problem, but that is because of the use of non-inertial reference frames and acceleration.

He also appeals to time being "multivalued" with a single even having multiple different time values. Which also is related to another "paradox". With relativity, time is relative. So there is nothing special or surprising about it.
As time is relative, simultaneousness is relative. 2 events can occur simultaneously in one reference frame, have event 1 occur earlier in another reference frame and have event 2 occur earlier in another reference frame.
So this isn't a problem at all.

And Dufour-Prunier experiment. Sandokhan talked about it in page 4, near end
Which experiment?
Page numbers aren't helpful as the page numbers vary depending upon how many posts per page you have your options set to. Reply number is far more useful, and a direct link to the post is even better as that has a unique message number which will never change without database manipulation.

And even better than that would be a link to the experiment.

Do you mean this one:
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdf
Where they produce an apparent contradiction?

This apparent contradiction is due to their choice of what claim should be an arbitrary choice of the apex of the triangle.
If that truly was arbitrary, then it should have no bearing at all on what the final result is. Yet the value they "predict" for reality using their simple formula is entirely dependent upon where they place that point.
That shows their conclusion is false.

In order to convince me they would need to provide a full derivation of the time required, will all approximations used.
Personally, I would say the simplest derivation is to note that the amount the source/detector rotates in the time it takes light to transit the loop is negligible (as it rotates at no more than 5 revolutions per second), thus the source/detector can be considered as being in an inertial reference frame. Thus you can calculate the time difference in the lab frame and can apply a simple transformation from the lab frame to its frame to determine the time difference in its frame, and by noting that its speed is negligible compared to the speed of light, you can also approximate them as being the same.

And then as the only difference in the path between the experiment entirely on a rotating disk and their experiment is the non-contributing axial paths and the path, then part of the light path being off the disk is irrelevant, other than the slight increase in time required for light to traverse the loop.

But that doesn't change the real issues for this thread.
The formulae Sandokhan are using to try to claim there is a missing orbital Sagnac effect either are outright false, relying upon pure nonsense for their derivation, or amount to an entirely reference frame dependent phase shift/time difference which cannot be directly measured, and the only way to attempt to measure it is by using a complex clock synchronisation method which is also reference frame dependent, where using a different synchronisation gives a different value.

None of it in any way supports a missing orbital Sagnac effect.

P.S. that font effect makes my eyes bleed.

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #403 on: September 23, 2020, 12:53:45 PM »
The world's greatest expert on GPS technology has already done the math. Same formula.

For you to call Ronald Hatch a "crackpot" is beyond belief.

You are wasting everyone's time here.

Prove it.  Show the math.  I included a reference that showed the entire process, from starting numbers to finish.  Your reference has none of that.  Show it, or quit claiming you can. 

And I'm not the only one to call him a crackpot.

https://www.quora.com/Ronald-R-Hatch-has-provided-an-alternative-theory-to-general-relativity-called-the-modified-Lorentz-aether-theory-Is-there-any-validity-to-his-work

"I also noted that he has managed to interlink pretty much the whole field of physics and a massive number of buzzwords into his theory in a manner that might sound very scientific to a biology or accounting major but often makes no sense to someone that knows what these words mean.

For instance: "Electric potential oscillating density gradient and the magnetic potential oscillating shear gradient with their inward or outward phase motion of oscillation, determines the polarity" - This is somehow part of his experimental justification for his gravitational model.

I might hesitate to call him a quack but perhaps he does qualify as a physics mountebank. :-)"


https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3o5kpn/what_is_up_with_ron_hatch_and_his_claims_that_gps/

"I skimmed through the presentation you linked, it's basically a giant pile of trash and nonsense. To break down all of the errors in it would take someone versed in relativity several hours to walk through. Also I chucked at the end when he presents an alternative involving aether—Dude's a crackpot."

About quora link. 1 answer is positive. Also, when you search "Ron Hatch Relativity reddit"  all results are showing him in positive light. Also, i belive that paper sandokhan (one talking about paper form 1937) links is form him. He can't make mistake on  basic level (talking about accusing Ashby of using wrong transformation)

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #404 on: September 23, 2020, 01:20:22 PM »
The formula I referenced for calculating the frequency decrease starts with this one.

You are wasting everyone's time here.

That is the formula for the rotational gravitational potential, both FE and RE will record this effect, it is the solar gravitational potential which matters.

You have again failed to answer the question and provide your alternate equations for deriving the required carrier frequency.

Let me actually perform the math for you, as shown in the GPS Wiki as an example of what you need to do.

gv is the velocity of the GPS satellites in meters.
re is the radius of the earth in meters.
rg is the radius of the GPS orbit in meters.
m is the mass of the Earth
g is the gravitational constant.
c is the speed of light.

v=3874 m/s
re=6357000 m
rg=26541000 m               
m=5.974*10^24
g=6.674*10^-11
c=2.998*10^8

Special Relativity Calculation: (Lorentz transformation)



(v^2)/(2*c^2)

(3874^2)/(2*(2.998*10^8)^2) = 0.00000000008348836960

General Relativity Calculation: (gravitational time dilation equation)



(g*m)/(re*c^2) - (g*m)/(rg*c^2) 

(6.674*10^-11 * m)/(6357000 * (2.998*10^8)^2) - (6.674*10^-11 * 5.974*10^24)/(26541000 * (2.998*10^8)^2) = 0.00000000053067167524
 
Now we subtract those two answers.

0.00000000053067167524 - 0.00000000008348836960 = 0.00000000044718330564

Finally we use that ratio to adjust the carrier frequency of 10.23 mhz.

(1 - 0.00000000044718330564) * 10.23 = 10.22999999543

And there you have it.  That's the frequency the GPS satellites transmit at.  Derived from actual numbers, using General and Special Relativity equations with all the math shown.

Conclusion: GPS satellites transmit at a rate defined by Einsteins Relativity calculations

You claim that it's some aether effect or something else?  Show the math.  Don't give me a bunch of copy-pastes or links to papers and empty claims, show actual numbers that I can put into a calculator.

What about:

Quote
That is the formula for the rotational gravitational potential, both FE and RE will record this effect, it is the solar gravitational potential which matters.

I just want to know the truth. I am Star wars and space lover since i was 3. Space means lot to me



*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #405 on: September 23, 2020, 02:52:25 PM »
About quora link. 1 answer is positive. Also, when you search "Ron Hatch Relativity reddit"  all results are showing him in positive light.
And that answer could easily be Sandokhan or someone like him.
However reading it, I don't see any which are actually positive. One is less negative than the others, but still not positive.
Meanwhile, plenty are quite negative.

As for reddit, you seem to have those placing him in a quite negative light and those with people arguing if he is correct.

He can't make mistake on  basic level (talking about accusing Ashby of using wrong transformation)
He can, that is part of the problem.
He falsely accused Ashby of using the wrong transformation as he didn't know what he was talking about.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #406 on: September 23, 2020, 03:03:29 PM »
The world's greatest expert on GPS technology has already done the math. Same formula.

For you to call Ronald Hatch a "crackpot" is beyond belief.

You are wasting everyone's time here.

Prove it.  Show the math.  I included a reference that showed the entire process, from starting numbers to finish.  Your reference has none of that.  Show it, or quit claiming you can. 

And I'm not the only one to call him a crackpot.

https://www.quora.com/Ronald-R-Hatch-has-provided-an-alternative-theory-to-general-relativity-called-the-modified-Lorentz-aether-theory-Is-there-any-validity-to-his-work

"I also noted that he has managed to interlink pretty much the whole field of physics and a massive number of buzzwords into his theory in a manner that might sound very scientific to a biology or accounting major but often makes no sense to someone that knows what these words mean.

For instance: "Electric potential oscillating density gradient and the magnetic potential oscillating shear gradient with their inward or outward phase motion of oscillation, determines the polarity" - This is somehow part of his experimental justification for his gravitational model.

I might hesitate to call him a quack but perhaps he does qualify as a physics mountebank. :-)"


https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3o5kpn/what_is_up_with_ron_hatch_and_his_claims_that_gps/

"I skimmed through the presentation you linked, it's basically a giant pile of trash and nonsense. To break down all of the errors in it would take someone versed in relativity several hours to walk through. Also I chucked at the end when he presents an alternative involving aether—Dude's a crackpot."

About quora link. 1 answer is positive. Also, when you search "Ron Hatch Relativity reddit"  all results are showing him in positive light. Also, i belive that paper sandokhan (one talking about paper form 1937) links is form him. He can't make mistake on  basic level (talking about accusing Ashby of using wrong transformation)

What answer is positive?  I didn't see anyone saying he was right.

As for Ron Hatch, what positive results? Random people on the internet like sandokhan? You don't see lots of scientists quoting his paper and praising him. They just ignored it as nonsense from a non-expert. A bunch of non-scientist flat earthers praising him isn't worth much.

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #407 on: September 23, 2020, 03:05:46 PM »
The formula I referenced for calculating the frequency decrease starts with this one.

You are wasting everyone's time here.

That is the formula for the rotational gravitational potential, both FE and RE will record this effect, it is the solar gravitational potential which matters.

You have again failed to answer the question and provide your alternate equations for deriving the required carrier frequency.

Let me actually perform the math for you, as shown in the GPS Wiki as an example of what you need to do.

gv is the velocity of the GPS satellites in meters.
re is the radius of the earth in meters.
rg is the radius of the GPS orbit in meters.
m is the mass of the Earth
g is the gravitational constant.
c is the speed of light.

v=3874 m/s
re=6357000 m
rg=26541000 m               
m=5.974*10^24
g=6.674*10^-11
c=2.998*10^8

Special Relativity Calculation: (Lorentz transformation)



(v^2)/(2*c^2)

(3874^2)/(2*(2.998*10^8)^2) = 0.00000000008348836960

General Relativity Calculation: (gravitational time dilation equation)



(g*m)/(re*c^2) - (g*m)/(rg*c^2) 

(6.674*10^-11 * m)/(6357000 * (2.998*10^8)^2) - (6.674*10^-11 * 5.974*10^24)/(26541000 * (2.998*10^8)^2) = 0.00000000053067167524
 
Now we subtract those two answers.

0.00000000053067167524 - 0.00000000008348836960 = 0.00000000044718330564

Finally we use that ratio to adjust the carrier frequency of 10.23 mhz.

(1 - 0.00000000044718330564) * 10.23 = 10.22999999543

And there you have it.  That's the frequency the GPS satellites transmit at.  Derived from actual numbers, using General and Special Relativity equations with all the math shown.

Conclusion: GPS satellites transmit at a rate defined by Einsteins Relativity calculations

You claim that it's some aether effect or something else?  Show the math.  Don't give me a bunch of copy-pastes or links to papers and empty claims, show actual numbers that I can put into a calculator.

What about:

Quote
That is the formula for the rotational gravitational potential, both FE and RE will record this effect, it is the solar gravitational potential which matters.

I just want to know the truth. I am Star wars and space lover since i was 3. Space means lot to me

He just quoted a random formula from whatever web site he was reading at the time. That's not calculating anything, just copy-pasting some text.

Showing the math means taking those starting numbers and showing a result and how you got it.  This he did not do.

He's also ignoring the fact that GPS satellites don't care about the "solar gravitational potential". Plenty of papers discuss this and point it out, several that were mentioned in the thread already.

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #408 on: September 24, 2020, 04:18:11 AM »
Quote
He just quoted a random formula from whatever web site he was reading at the time. That's not calculating anything, just copy-pasting some text.

Before you said he quoted wrong formula form your reference. Not some random web page

Quote

He's also ignoring the fact that GPS satellites don't care about the "solar gravitational potential". Plenty of papers discuss this and point it out, several that were mentioned in the thread already.

Is i am remembering correctly dr. Engelhagt made paper showibg he is faulty. Also, as i know Hatch also criticiesed paper.



*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #409 on: September 24, 2020, 04:39:26 AM »
Quote
He just quoted a random formula from whatever web site he was reading at the time. That's not calculating anything, just copy-pasting some text.

Before you said he quoted wrong formula form your reference. Not some random web page

Quote

He's also ignoring the fact that GPS satellites don't care about the "solar gravitational potential". Plenty of papers discuss this and point it out, several that were mentioned in the thread already.

Is i am remembering correctly dr. Engelhagt made paper showibg he is faulty. Also, as i know Hatch also criticiesed paper.

Yes, one scientist who was an expert in his field criticized it. But you didn't see 10 or 100 others saying how great it was. It was mostly ignored except for one person. That's not the mark of a successful, well received paper. Most other scientists didn't need to directly refute it, as there are a hundred published and peer reviewed papers that ARE correct. They don't all waste their time dealing with papers written by non-experts that are easily discredited just by comparing to established research.

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #410 on: September 24, 2020, 04:51:01 AM »
Quote
He just quoted a random formula from whatever web site he was reading at the time. That's not calculating anything, just copy-pasting some text.

Before you said he quoted wrong formula form your reference. Not some random web page

Quote

He's also ignoring the fact that GPS satellites don't care about the "solar gravitational potential". Plenty of papers discuss this and point it out, several that were mentioned in the thread already.

Is i am remembering correctly dr. Engelhagt made paper showibg he is faulty. Also, as i know Hatch also criticiesed paper.

Yes, one scientist who was an expert in his field criticized it. But you didn't see 10 or 100 others saying how great it was. It was mostly ignored except for one person. That's not the mark of a successful, well received paper. Most other scientists didn't need to directly refute it, as there are a hundred published and peer reviewed papers that ARE correct. They don't all waste their time dealing with papers written by non-experts that are easily discredited just by comparing to established research.

Quote
Yes, one scientist who was an expert in his field criticized it

Quote
They don't all waste their time dealing with papers written by non-experts that are easily discredited just by comparing to established research.

So is he expert or not or you arent talking aboit same persion?

Quote
It was mostly ignored except for one person. 

Who was that one persion?



*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #411 on: September 24, 2020, 02:17:56 PM »
Is i am remembering correctly dr. Engelhagt made paper showibg he is faulty.
Do you mean the one in the predatory journal, where you can pay to get whatever nonsense you want published with no peer review? Or some other paper?

Also, as i know Hatch also criticiesed paper.
Who cares? Hatch is an expert in the application of GPS, not the functioning of it, not the underlying physical principles.

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #412 on: September 24, 2020, 11:49:16 PM »
JJA you said he quoted formula form random webpage. Before you said he quoted wrong formula,form your reference. What is it

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #413 on: September 25, 2020, 04:48:29 AM »
JJA you said he quoted formula form random webpage. Before you said he quoted wrong formula,form your reference. What is it

To be honest I am not going to wade through all of Sandokhans posts AGAIN.

You saw my formula, and all my calculations here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85840.msg2264380#msg2264380

You can use a calculator and do them yourself.

This gets you the correct frequency the GPS satellites need to transmit on to correct for relativistic effects of their orbits.

I challenged Sandokhan to show where it was wrong, or to do the math himself using his formula. It doesn't matter where he got his equations if they don't work. He has claimed a lot of things, that's why I posted the math. Unless he can come up with the same answer, his methods are wrong.

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #414 on: February 09, 2021, 03:45:19 AM »
So i found this post on science forums. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50609-earths-orbital-sagnac/


So they claim orbital saganac will be 1~365 of rotational saganac for a sattelite which orbits Earth dialy. Are they right about it? Can you calculate effect just by multipying known value by time other one takes? So, is effect big as sandokhan claims, non-exsistent as some of you imply, or small as Ashby and they get?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #415 on: February 09, 2021, 10:53:17 AM »
So i found this post on science forums. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50609-earths-orbital-sagnac/


So they claim orbital saganac will be 1~365 of rotational saganac for a sattelite which orbits Earth dialy. Are they right about it? Can you calculate effect just by multipying known value by time other one takes? So, is effect big as sandokhan claims, non-exsistent as some of you imply, or small as Ashby and they get?

I can't remember all the in's and out's of this thread, but I don't think anyone has said that the Sagnac Effect in GPS is "non-existent". If I remember correctly, all along, we were saying that it's inconsequential, unnecessary as it relates to orbiting around the Sun. GPS satellites don't care about about orbiting around the Sun because the important and only relevant frame of reference is orbiting around the Earth. Not the Sun. It's a "Global" Positioning System, not a "Helio" Positioning System.

Some have argued that making GPS factor in Earth and its GPS satellites orbit around the Sun would make GPS more accurate. Maybe it would. But no one seems to really care because the Sagnac Effect orbit around the Sun is so inconsequential that it's considered "noise". I think Sandy's argument has always been, "GPS is "missing" the Sagnac Effect so it must be wrong, ergo, satellites don't exist..." or something like that.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #416 on: February 09, 2021, 12:52:36 PM »
So i found this post on science forums. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50609-earths-orbital-sagnac/


So they claim orbital saganac will be 1~365 of rotational saganac for a sattelite which orbits Earth dialy. Are they right about it? Can you calculate effect just by multipying known value by time other one takes? So, is effect big as sandokhan claims, non-exsistent as some of you imply, or small as Ashby and they get?
It depend on exactly how you calculate the 2 effects, but yes if you have one.

The shift for the Sagnac effect (at least as a very good approximation for things travelling no where near the speed of light) is dt=4*A*omega/c^2
The only variable here for a given interferometer, is omega.
If you treat Earth's rotation as a 24 hour rotation and the orbit as a 1 year rotation, then you get the orbital Sagnac is ~1/365 times the rotational Sagnac due to these different angular velocities.

However that is not the best way to treat it.
It is much simpler to treat the orbit as purely translational, without any rotation and instead have Earth's actual rotation based upon a sidereal day.
This has the 2 effects combine to give you a single effect with a period of rotation just less than 24 hours. (23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds if I recall correctly).

So depending on how you treat it, you either have a single effect and you don't have the orbital Sagnac effect; or you have 2 effects, where the effect due to rotation is slightly smaller than in the other case, and the orbital Sagnac effect is roughly 1/365th of that, such that they combine to produce the same overall effect.

Either way Sandokhan is wrong.
Initially he claimed that A is also a variable, and that instead of being the size of the interferometer it was actually the size of the orbit.

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #417 on: February 09, 2021, 03:37:17 PM »
So i found this post on science forums. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50609-earths-orbital-sagnac/


So they claim orbital saganac will be 1~365 of rotational saganac for a sattelite which orbits Earth dialy. Are they right about it? Can you calculate effect just by multipying known value by time other one takes? So, is effect big as sandokhan claims, non-exsistent as some of you imply, or small as Ashby and they get?
It depend on exactly how you calculate the 2 effects, but yes if you have one.

The shift for the Sagnac effect (at least as a very good approximation for things travelling no where near the speed of light) is dt=4*A*omega/c^2
The only variable here for a given interferometer, is omega.
If you treat Earth's rotation as a 24 hour rotation and the orbit as a 1 year rotation, then you get the orbital Sagnac is ~1/365 times the rotational Sagnac due to these different angular velocities.

However that is not the best way to treat it.
It is much simpler to treat the orbit as purely translational, without any rotation and instead have Earth's actual rotation based upon a sidereal day.
This has the 2 effects combine to give you a single effect with a period of rotation just less than 24 hours. (23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds if I recall correctly).

So depending on how you treat it, you either have a single effect and you don't have the orbital Sagnac effect; or you have 2 effects, where the effect due to rotation is slightly smaller than in the other case, and the orbital Sagnac effect is roughly 1/365th of that, such that they combine to produce the same overall effect.


Wow, it was simple after all :) .

What is problem then? Why does Hatch or anyone realy claim it is wrong? Are they trying to make it work on MLET or something? I know sandokhan tried to use C.C. Su's work which was trying to make effect work on his ether theory to disprove relativity. He was shown wrong, but later used paper again

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83972.msg2218541#msg2218541

Quote
Either way Sandokhan is wrong.
Initially he claimed that A is also a variable, and that instead of being the size of the interferometer it was actually the size of the orbit.

Based on Wang's work on Fiber optic Conveyor?

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

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609235

Didn't he take part where they used fiber optic's leinght in that specific setup to calculate saganac and claim it applies to all setups, both FOC and FOG and whatewer. Then he got his formula by rearranging parts of original formula in stupid way, and used it in whatewer case (sometimes with old experiments, like MM...)

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #418 on: February 09, 2021, 03:46:58 PM »
So i found this post on science forums. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50609-earths-orbital-sagnac/


So they claim orbital saganac will be 1~365 of rotational saganac for a sattelite which orbits Earth dialy. Are they right about it? Can you calculate effect just by multipying known value by time other one takes? So, is effect big as sandokhan claims, non-exsistent as some of you imply, or small as Ashby and they get?
It depend on exactly how you calculate the 2 effects, but yes if you have one.

The shift for the Sagnac effect (at least as a very good approximation for things travelling no where near the speed of light) is dt=4*A*omega/c^2
The only variable here for a given interferometer, is omega.
If you treat Earth's rotation as a 24 hour rotation and the orbit as a 1 year rotation, then you get the orbital Sagnac is ~1/365 times the rotational Sagnac due to these different angular velocities.

However that is not the best way to treat it.
It is much simpler to treat the orbit as purely translational, without any rotation and instead have Earth's actual rotation based upon a sidereal day.
This has the 2 effects combine to give you a single effect with a period of rotation just less than 24 hours. (23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds if I recall correctly).

So depending on how you treat it, you either have a single effect and you don't have the orbital Sagnac effect; or you have 2 effects, where the effect due to rotation is slightly smaller than in the other case, and the orbital Sagnac effect is roughly 1/365th of that, such that they combine to produce the same overall effect.


Wow, it was simple after all :) .

What is problem then? Why does Hatch or anyone realy claim it is wrong? Are they trying to make it work on MLET or something?

Yes. Aether fanboys.

I know sandokhan tried to use C.C. Su's work which was trying to make effect work on his ether theory to disprove relativity. He was shown wrong, but later used paper again

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83972.msg2218541#msg2218541

Quote
Either way Sandokhan is wrong.
Initially he claimed that A is also a variable, and that instead of being the size of the interferometer it was actually the size of the orbit.

Based on Wang's work on Fiber optic Conveyor?

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

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609235

Didn't he take part where they used fiber optic's leinght in that specific setup to calculate saganac and claim it applies to all setups, both FOC and FOG and whatewer. Then he got his formula by rearranging parts of original formula in stupid way, and used it in whatewer case (sometimes with old experiments, like MM...)

Hacked apart formulas incorrectly applied to whatever. Sounds about right. 

Re: Is there a Missing Orbital Sagnac Effect?
« Reply #419 on: February 09, 2021, 04:02:17 PM »
So i found this post on science forums. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50609-earths-orbital-sagnac/


So they claim orbital saganac will be 1~365 of rotational saganac for a sattelite which orbits Earth dialy. Are they right about it? Can you calculate effect just by multipying known value by time other one takes? So, is effect big as sandokhan claims, non-exsistent as some of you imply, or small as Ashby and they get?

I can't remember all the in's and out's of this thread, but I don't think anyone has said that the Sagnac Effect in GPS is "non-existent". If I remember correctly, all along, we were saying that it's inconsequential, unnecessary as it relates to orbiting around the Sun. GPS satellites don't care about about orbiting around the Sun because the important and only relevant frame of reference is orbiting around the Earth. Not the Sun. It's a "Global" Positioning System, not a "Helio" Positioning System.

Some have argued that making GPS factor in Earth and its GPS satellites orbit around the Sun would make GPS more accurate. Maybe it would. But no one seems to really care because the Sagnac Effect orbit around the Sun is so inconsequential that it's considered "noise". I think Sandy's argument has always been, "GPS is "missing" the Sagnac Effect so it must be wrong, ergo, satellites don't exist..." or something like that.

Earlier i claimed that if LISA detects something, GPS shoud to, since they orbit same star, after all.

I now see i was wrong. Althrought i don't 100% get LISA-GPS diffirence, since LISA is also having its own rotation unlike GPS, i can tell it isn't as simple as I said it.

Problems pointed out here are form GPS signaling Earth. All saganac's and whatewer. So if LISA were firing a signal to sun, then we will ba able to compare two. We can compare signals form LISA and GPS signaling each other. LISA, not counting its own rotation (via diffirent orbital paths) (GPS has its own rotation to, since they aren't orbiting on same orbital plane, but it isn't same, I guess?(someone explain plz))takes far longer to make orbit, so we can except smaller Saganac. You don't need to be scientist to figure that. GPS makes shorter orbits, so more drift.

Papers for LISA appear to be talking about its own rotation via diffirent orbital paths, which is similar to what GPS sattelites are doing by orbiting on diffirent inclination, but isn't exsacly same. Am i getting this right? Also , can someone explain how much inclination diffirence (and by it orbit in 3d space) in GPS

https://images.app.goo.gl/9PhB1vVi47Nejgbh6

(Imagine there were only 3 connected "saganacted" sattelites, like LISA)

is diffirent form this:

https://images.app.goo.gl/ZjGw5Anfn2wGH7Zj6

Thanks

Quote

I think Sandy's argument has always been, "GPS is "missing" the Sagnac Effect so it must be wrong, ergo, satellites don't exist..." or something like that.


No, sandokhan belives sattelites and ISS are held up by Biefeld-Brown effect. He bases it of belief effect is shown in vaccum.

He uses idea that they don't record orbital saganac (which him and Hatch make bigger in god-knows-how ways) to make fallacy that either Local Ether model is correct or Earth is stationary, and then he pairs it up with other claim.

Yeah, i am definitly not lunatic for looking at copypasta for hours
« Last Edit: February 09, 2021, 04:04:47 PM by Code-Beta1234 »