[Humble B]

Because a medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but that will not change its trajectory from "straight" into "curved".

You must be dreaming.

You must be sleeping.

Dr. Ludwik Silberstein calculated the PRECISE deflection due to the Coriolis effect on a light beam:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

Yes, but they all explain that Coriolis effect on a light beam as the result of a spinning earth, not a spinning ether, because spinning ethers can not create Coriolis effects. Impossible. And Dr. Ludwik Silberstein knows that, because he knows what a Coriolis effect is.

It is a physical effect.

No. The Coriolis effect is NOT a physical effect, it is an OPTICAL EFFECT: a straight line observed as curved because the frame of reference of the observer (Including the observer himself) is rotating. When the observer leaves the rotating reference frame to a fixed non-rotating point of observation, he will see the light beam as a straight, not curved line above a rotating surface.

And if the earth is stationary, we the observers are not rotating with a rotating reference frame, and for that reason we will not see any Coriolis effects above a stationary earth.



The fatal flaws in your theory are:

1- The observer has to be rotating with his rotating reference frame; a rotating ether does not rotate the observer, so no Coriolis effect to be observed above a stationary earth.

2- The ether is invisible, and therefore completely useless to explain optical effects, like the Coriolis effect.

3- The ether is a medium, and electromagnetic waves travel in a straight line through media, not in a curved line.

4- If a spinning medium like ether would "drag" electromagnetic waves, it would only do so in one direction, not in two opposite directions simultaneously like the Coriolis effect does:



Therefore a spinning earth as explanation for the Coriolis effect can not be replaced by an invisible spinning ether, and none of the researchers you are linking to is doing so.

[sandokhan]

Not only are you dreaming, you haven't even bothered to read Dr. Silberstein's paper.

Yes, but they all explain that Coriolis effect on a light beam as the result of a spinning earth, not a spinning ether, because spinning ethers can not create Coriolis effects. Impossible. And Dr. Ludwik Silberstein knows that, because he knows what a Coriolis effect is.

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

Dr. Silberstein, right on the first page:

TO BEGIN WITH THE AETHER-THEORY TREATMENT...

THEN HE INTRODUCES THE ROTATION AETHER DRAGGING FACTOR:

κω

Even the main formula (12) takes into account the aether drag factor.

If a spinning medium like ether would "drag" electromagnetic waves, it would only do so in one direction, not in two opposite directions simultaneously like the Coriolis effect does

The ether drift is LATITUDE DEPENDENT, just like the globe earth Coriolis effect.

The Coriolis effect is NOT a physical effect, it is an OPTICAL EFFECT: a straight line observed as curved because the frame of reference of the observer (Including the observer himself) is rotating.

Not anymore.

HERE IS THE CORRECT ROTATIONAL SAGNAC FORMULA:



EXPERIMENTAL PROOF PROVIDED BY PROFESSOR P. YEH:



The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26797550_Self-pumped_phase-conjugate_fiber-optic_gyro

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.


Please wake up!

Michelson published this formula, proven to be the Coriolis effect formula:

4AΩ/c^2

He emphasized that this is the Sagnac effect formula, which it is not.

Can you understand these basic things?

MICHELSON RECORDED/REGISTERED ONLY THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND NOT THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

This means that the Earth is completely stationary.

Had the Earth been rotating around its own axis, BOTH EFFECTS would have been recorded.

The fringe shifts recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect of the ether drift: a physical effect upon the light beams, a simple deflection, just as proven by Dr. Silberstein.

No Sagnac effect was detected, which is an electromagnetic effect on the velocity of the light beams, an effect thousands of times greater than the Coriolis effect.

A total invalidation of your half-baked ideas.

Please do your homework before posting nonsense.

[sandokhan]

Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.

The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').

FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4AΩsinΦ/c²

FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:

4Lv(cos²Φ₁ + cos²Φ₂)/c²


Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:

R((cos²Φ₁ + cos²Φ₂)/hsinΦ

R = 4,250 km

h = 0.33924 km

The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.

Φ₁ = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°

Φ₂ = 41°45' = 41.75°

R((cos²Φ₁ + cos²Φ₂) = 4729.885

hsinΦ = 0.225967

4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72

THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

Case closed.

[Humble B]

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

Case closed.

If Michelson and Gale recorded the Coriolis effect (with or without the Sagnac effect), then they were standing on a rotating floor.
And if this rotating floor was fixed to the earth, they proved the earth is rotating.

Because Coriolis effects only can be recorded if the recorder is rotating, and ether does not rotate Michelson and Gale.

Case closed.

[sandokhan]

If Michelson and Gale recorded the Coriolis effect (with or without the Sagnac effect), then they were standing on a rotating floor.
And if this rotating floor was fixed to the earth, they proved the earth is rotating.

Had the rotational Sagnac effect been recorded, then and only then you'd be able to claim MGX were standing on a rotating floor.

Unfortunately for the RE, Michelson's interferometer in Clearing, Illinois, registered ONLY the Coriolis effect of the ether drift. Not the rotational Sagnac effect, which is thousands of times greater than the Coriolis effect.

Two different formulas: one is proportional to the area of the interferometer (Coriolis effect), the other one is proportional to the velocity (radius of the earth x angular velocity) (Sagnac effect), a huge difference.

I have the formulas, you have nothing.

I win.

[Humble B]

When the experiments were done on a stationary earth, not only the rotational Sagnac effect, but also the Coriolis effect should not be recorded.
And since the Coriolis effect is an optical effect, you always need a visible rotating surface to create it.
Invisible media, like the ether, can not be used to create & explain an optical effect.

If that is too hard for you to understand, then you've a serious problem understanding what the Coriolis effect is.

I have the formulas, you have nothing.

I win.

You have formulas, but you don't know how to use them. And those who know how to use those formulas, know they need a spinning globe to make them work.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and formulas only can prove a theory when they are used, but to copy/paste formulas you don't know how to use is not the same thing as using them. Pasting formulas does not prove theories.

So no victory for you yet, until you have figured out & demonstrated how those formulas based on spinning globes can be used to prove a stationary earth.