Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - SteelyBob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20  Next >
1
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 12:56:44 PM »
No.

c is a fixed constant, O(3x105km/hr).

v is either O(1) or O(30km/hr).

That is, c>>v.

Ah, thank you - I see what you did now.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 12:09:58 PM »
I'm curious as to how Sandokhan got to the formula

I have already the provided the link for the derivation of the formula.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

there's clearly some fairly significant errors along the way

You won't find any. It is a very straightforward derivation.

That looks fundamentally wrong to me - the simplification on the right isn't equal to the term on left. Thoughts?

Work out the term on the left, pretty tedious algebra, and you will arrive at the term on the right.

You also have the classic example from the very simple situation where the center of rotation coincides with the geometrical center:



The formula is correct. What you have to deal with now, are the consequences.

From your link:



Keep it simple and just look at the first formula - it's just not correct. l/(c-v) - l/(c+v) does not equal 2lv/c2

It's easy to prove by plugging in some numbers - say l=1, c=3 and v=2.

The left hand side would give you 1/(3-2) - 1/(3+2) = 1 - 1/5 = 4/5

The right hand side would give you 2 x 1 x 2 / 32 = 4/9

Always happy to proven wrong, but that doesn't look right to me.








3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 10:55:03 AM »
He already showed you the assumptions and arithmetic required to arrive at Δt=8ωA/c^2. If you disagree with any of the steps, you'll have to pinpoint them

Is my post not pinpoint enough? If the one term doesn't equal the other, then what follows or precedes it can't be right either, can it? Or am I missing something?

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 10:47:32 AM »
I’m well aware of that equation, but I’m not really clear why you’ve brought it up.
Yes, that's rather apparent. Let's help you out.
  • You provided a formula for Δϕ
  • Sandokhan provided a proposed formula for Δt
  • You were confused by this, so I showed you the relation between Δϕ and Δt - all that was required of you was simple algebra
  • Since this still eludes you, we can conclude that even though "you are well aware of that equation", you do not understand it in the slightest.

it is missing the Pi and λ terms.
It's not missing anything at all. Once again, note that .

Are you with us yet? If we can make it past substitution, we might even be able to discuss physics at some point.

Thank you, and my apologies - I hadn't spotted that he was still talking about 'dt'. Makes sense.

I'm curious as to how Sandokhan got to the formula - there's clearly some fairly significant errors along the way. I'm not talking about minor mistakes - I've no interest in derailing threads when somebody makes a minor mistake (witness this one from TB earlier here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18565.msg246662#msg246662). But, for example, sandokhan says this:

Quote
Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2


That looks fundamentally wrong to me - the simplification on the right isn't equal to the term on left. Thoughts?

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 09:50:53 PM »
Where have Pi and λ gone?
If you had actually read and understood the article you're plucking formulae out of, you would have noticed that . It really would be a good idea to understand what you're discussing before proudly taking a stance on it.

Now, it's still possible that sandy made a small (and largely insignificant for the purpose of this discussion) arithmetic error in his calculations. Can you find it?

I’m well aware of that equation, but I’m not really clear why you’ve brought it up. The reason I quoted the generalised sagnac formula is that it is the one used to get from the interferometer reading to a rotation rate - you can’t measure delta t directly, but you can measure the phase shift.

I’m just pointing out that the equation sandokhan has come up with is not actually the same as the one I showed - it is missing the Pi and λ terms. The latter is particularly important, as without it, the dimensions of the equation change.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 03:38:08 PM »
For an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center, it's even simpler.

Circle

l = 2πr
v1 = v2

My formula: 2(2lv)/c^2 = 4lv/c^2 = 8πωr2/c^2 = 8ωA/c^2

Square

dt = 8rv/c^2 (r = d/2, d = diagonal of the square) = 8ωA/c^2


Everything changes when the center of rotation no longer coincides with the geometrical center of the interferometer.


The ether drift field has a variable speed, latitude dependent. Remember, now I have the formula to PROVE that there is only one possibility for the registered Coriolis effect: it is the ether drift which is rotating above the surface of the Earth.

The formula I showed you was:



You've ended up with 8ωA/c^2

Where have Pi and λ gone?

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 12:16:35 PM »

If you have a geometrically symmetrical interferometer (square/circle) placed on a rotating platform, then the Coriolis effect formula will COINCIDE with the Sagnac effect formula. It is the only time they will do so.


Ok then. So go back to my previous question - help me understand your formula. You have a symmetrical (let's say square, to keep it simple) RLG on a rotating platform turning at a rate ω. The interferometer of the RLG detects a phase shift Δφ. You are now saying that both formulae would return the same result in this case, but you haven't actually explained how those terms fit into your formula, other than saying v=ωr.

Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2

How would you get from a measured phase shift, Δφ, to a rotation rate, ω, using that formula and v=ωr?

You are also asserting that RLGs are in fact detecting the rotation of the ether. You posted a link in response to my point about latitude variation, but that link doesn't really explain the concept at all - it just says that variations in latitude were observed. Miller may have been an aether proponent, but he still very much subscribed to the round earth model, as the diagrams in that text show. You are proposing a flat earth, with aether / ether rotation that is both detectable by RLGs and also variable according to the sine of the latitude of the device. How do you explain the variation of the measurements with latitude? It makes no sense at all on a flat earth - what is so special about the equator, for example?





8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 11:13:21 AM »
Let us imagine the Earth as a very large scale turntable. To detect the rotation of the turntable itself, you need the Sagnac effect. With the Coriolis effect, you have either of two possibilities: either the turntable is rotating or the ether drift is rotating above its surface.

What Michelson did is to substitute the Coriolis effect formula for the Sagnac effect formula, and then he claimed that the Earth is rotating. Not by a long shot.

The RLGs are detecting the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

RLGs, as used in navigation systems, or scientific experiments, all use interferometers to measure the phase difference between the two light paths and calculate the rotation rate using the formula I showed above, which is the same formula Sagnac himself came up with.

It's a simple question - are these RLGs measuring rotation correctly or not? Forget about earth rate for a moment, just consider a RLG on a rotating platform turning at a given rate. Would you agree that commercial systems, such as the Honeywell GG1320, actually work correctly?


9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 10:27:38 AM »

So my interferometer detects a phase shift of Δφ radians between the two light beams

Yes, that's the Coriolis effect phase shift. But you won't detect the Sagnac effect.

Each interferometer has two phenomena to deal with: a mechanical effect (Coriolis effect) and an electromagnetic effect (Sagnac effect). Two separate formulas.

So are you suggesting that every RLG that measures rotation via an interferometer is in fact wrong?

10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 09:41:29 AM »
v =  ωr

Ok...so v = ωr and

Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2

So my interferometer detects a phase shift of Δφ radians between the two light beams...how do I calculate rotation rate from that? Where does t come into it? And r? And which v are we talking about?

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 09:11:18 AM »
dt is not the derivative, it is the delta t, difference in time, time shift formula. The notation for the derivative is d/dt (dt is the differential notation).

The ether drift is latitude dependent.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

The Coriolis effect is SUBLUMINAL.

The Sagnac effect is SUPERLUMINAL.

That is, if you want the Sagnac effect, the formula must reflect the superluminal velocity. No superluminal velocity, no Sagnac formula.

Coriolis and Sagnac effect formulas for a square ring laser interferometer:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2153966#msg2153966

Derivation of the Sagnac effect formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351


KASSNER EFFECT

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2234871#msg2234871 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2235136#msg2235136 (part II)

Dr. Gianfranco Spavieri

In both the outward and return paths, the one-way speed is c (in agreement with Einstein’s second postulate) if the length L of the outward path covered by the signal is reduced to L(1 - 2v/c) < L in Eq. (3).

CORIOLIS EFFECT = a path measuring L(1 - 2v/c), a comparison of two separate/different segments

SAGNAC EFFECT = a path measuring L, a comparison of two continuous loops

Therefore, Michelson and Gale, Silberstein, Langevin, Post, Bilger, Anderson, Steadman, Rizzi, Targaglia, Ruggiero, have been measuring ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula (area and angular velocity), nothing else. The formulas features on the wikipedia and mathpages websites are the CORIOLIS EFFECT equations, not the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formulas.


Here is the crown jewel of all the SAGNAC EFFECT formulas:

Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2)

The velocity terms are immediately identified: c - v1 - v2 and c + v1 + v2.


Δt = (l1 + l2)/(c - v1 - v2) - (l1 + l2)/(c + v1 + v2) = 2[(l1v1 + l2v2)]/c2

So, using your 'crown jewel' formula, if I have a RLG system, with an interferometer, and I measure some phase shift Δφ, how do I calculate the rotation rate, ω? Your formula has neither of those terms in it.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 08:24:41 AM »
Show me your formula. Is it by any chance, dt = 4Aω/c2? That's the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

Here is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

A huge difference.

Where did you get those formulae from? It would be helpful if you could both explain what the various terms are, and to complete the formulae. The first one doesn't look right at all - the Coriolis effect is simply a function of motion in a non-inertial, rotating frame - the speed of light, c, wouldn't normally come into it. Also that one starts with 'dt = ', but there is no corresponding derivative on the other side of the formula, which means it is essentially meaningless, as dt on its own is zero. I wonder if you've got that from vibrating Coriolis gyro systems? Hard to tell.

Likewise your Sagnac formula bears no resemblance to the Sagnac formula described in several of the papers we've been discussing, Wikipedia, as well as the slide deck I linked to, which is:

 

where Δφ is the phase difference measured by the interferometer, λ is the wavelength of the light, and ω is the rotation rate (sometimes presented as the capital letter Ω in the context of earth rate).

Your formula for the Sagnac effect has only one side of the equation, so it's not clear what the term actually represents, and it seems to bear no resemblance at all to Sagnac's original formula. It may well be that it is in some way related, but without your source, or some context, it's just meaningless I'm afraid.

You appear to be claiming that RLGs are in fact measuring the rotation of some 'ether', presumably rotating above the FE surface. If that's the case, then you need to explain what the mechanism is by which this mysterious rotation is being detected, and why it is related to the latitude of the sensor. Why would the measured rotation be zero at the equator, and a maximum at the North Pole and southern pole / ice wall / whatever it is ?

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 21, 2021, 08:28:27 PM »
What is your point?

You must be joking, of course.

Here is the point: you are using the wrong formula for the RLGs and the MGX. To detect rotation, you need the SAGNAC EFFECT formula. Your formula (the one that you are endorsing) is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula. Then, you have two possibilities: either the Earth is rotating, OR, you have a rotational ether drift above the surface of the Earth. The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Each RLG has TWO FORMULAS: one for the Coriolis effect, and one for the Sagnac effect.

One is a mechanical effect, the slight deflection of the light beams (Coriolis), it is proportional to the area/angular velocity. The other one is an electromagnetic effect (Sagnac), it is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.

All of the graphs have come from papers and briefings made by other people. The specific graph we are discussing came from this slide pack: https://indico.cern.ch/event/736594/contributions/3184374/attachments/1741872/2819336/DiVirgilio_COSMO2018.pdf

It clearly explains the use of the sagnac effect to derive the rotation rate. That graph is derived from the sagnac effect.


[edited to fix link]

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 21, 2021, 08:09:28 PM »
Sure the graph shows rotation. So, based on the results of the RLGs experiments (we might also mention the MGX) you are saying that it is the Earth which is rotating around its own axis? Is that your last word? You still have time to retract your statement.

Not sure it's my last word on the matter, but yes, the graph clearly shows the output from a ring laser gyro measuring the earth's rotation around the polar axis. What is your point?

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Civilians in Space
« on: September 21, 2021, 06:58:01 PM »
They are high above the earth.

Not a fake video.

So you're asserting that they are 'high above the earth' now? In what? The actual rocket / pod that they claim to have used, but just much lower? So they aren't in orbit? Or are you saying they are just in a normal aircraft? How long are they up there for? The claimed time? Or much less?

Quote
So Gravity was filmed in some environment that was devoid of real time?

The actors, of course, are filmed in essentially real time (not withstanding multiple takes etc), but the CGI takes far, far longer - you can't just film somebody and have them magically appear to be floating in space as you film. Still waiting for you to provide evidence of this.
Quote
I am not the one who needs to be aware of qualifications for lying and faking and willingness to go along with the program.

Well, you are asserting a massive conspiracy involving people with no motive for taking part. That's a huge claim, which you a making with no credible evidence or even plausible explanation.

Quote
No one here need be.

There was no evidence at all for the Wright Brothers to act on their ideas either.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Quote
You have no clue whether they were in "outer space," at all.

Somebody told you that and somebody has told you prior there is such a thing.

You choose to believe what you are told and you can look at things and interpret those things your way.

I choose to believe that which is supported by a massive preponderance of evidence. The space programmes, of both the USA and other countries, are all supported by an enormous, coherent body of evidence.

Quote
I choose not to believe what I have told about the nature of the world surrounding me amd I look at things and interpret them otherwise.

It's fine to be skeptical of things, but that also requires that you adjust your beliefs when confronted with evidence. You appear to be forming a view and then cherry picking evidence to suit your views, or as in this case, constructing a narrative that suits your views without anything to support it. In order for your assertion here to be true, you need a group of people to behave in a completely irrational way with no motive, and for some technology that doesn't exist to be in existence.

Quote
Have a great day and work on your math.

Are we discussing mathematics here? Which bit of my math should I work on?
Steely Bob, you already tried to pass off some crap math in the ICBM thread and got called out on it.

I am done with your disingenuous, gaslighting tactics.

Like I wrote earlier, you have an opinion of what reality is based on what is presented to you.

Mine differs.

You want me to accept your interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence.

I see the same thing you see, I don't interpret it your way.

I am just as committed to my opinion as you are to yours.

I will keep posting, you keep posting.

C ya.

That's just a load of ad hominem distraction and deflection. Why not just stick to the debate at hand? Of course we disagree - this is a debating forum. Your failure to address the questions asked, or to provide any evidence to support your statements, merely transmits the message that you don't have an argument and are either trolling or are just very confused.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Civilians in Space
« on: September 21, 2021, 05:05:18 PM »
They are high above the earth.

Not a fake video.

So you're asserting that they are 'high above the earth' now? In what? The actual rocket / pod that they claim to have used, but just much lower? So they aren't in orbit? Or are you saying they are just in a normal aircraft? How long are they up there for? The claimed time? Or much less?

Quote
So Gravity was filmed in some environment that was devoid of real time?

The actors, of course, are filmed in essentially real time (not withstanding multiple takes etc), but the CGI takes far, far longer - you can't just film somebody and have them magically appear to be floating in space as you film. Still waiting for you to provide evidence of this.
Quote
I am not the one who needs to be aware of qualifications for lying and faking and willingness to go along with the program.

Well, you are asserting a massive conspiracy involving people with no motive for taking part. That's a huge claim, which you a making with no credible evidence or even plausible explanation.

Quote
No one here need be.

There was no evidence at all for the Wright Brothers to act on their ideas either.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Quote
You have no clue whether they were in "outer space," at all.

Somebody told you that and somebody has told you prior there is such a thing.

You choose to believe what you are told and you can look at things and interpret those things your way.

I choose to believe that which is supported by a massive preponderance of evidence. The space programmes, of both the USA and other countries, are all supported by an enormous, coherent body of evidence.

Quote
I choose not to believe what I have told about the nature of the world surrounding me amd I look at things and interpret them otherwise.

It's fine to be skeptical of things, but that also requires that you adjust your beliefs when confronted with evidence. You appear to be forming a view and then cherry picking evidence to suit your views, or as in this case, constructing a narrative that suits your views without anything to support it. In order for your assertion here to be true, you need a group of people to behave in a completely irrational way with no motive, and for some technology that doesn't exist to be in existence.

Quote
Have a great day and work on your math.

Are we discussing mathematics here? Which bit of my math should I work on?

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Civilians in Space
« on: September 21, 2021, 02:26:38 PM »

Yeah, I tend to do that, unlike you.

The video is not fake. Who said the video was fake?

If they are claiming to be in space, and the video is modified to make it look like they're in space, then it's fake, isn't it?

Quote
My argument isn't undermined at all.

All of that can be altered during presentation.

How?

You've got two fundamental problems. Firstly, you've got to persuade a group of disparate people with no space experience, who desperately wanted to go into space, to suddenly join in on a conspiracy. They can't be actors, remember, because one of them is very well known anyway, and at least one of the others is known to the people on the video. But they have to be good at lying and acting, which you can't have known about when they were chosen for the mission.

Then you've got the technical side. You've repeatedly said that the necessary stuff can be done to make them look weightless, but you haven't offered up any evidence to support that. Yes, films like Gravity have been made, but they weren't filmed in real time - there will have been hours of painstaking work being each scene, and even then, there are still plenty of details that aren't quite right. So you're conjuring some magical CGI that can make people look like they are weightless in real time without any evidence at all that such technology exists.



18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Civilians in Space
« on: September 21, 2021, 12:41:11 PM »
Jesus H Christ?

Why do they have to be in space?

Cause they said so?

No.

Wy can't they be in space? Because you say so?
Where did I state that?
Cause I saw a video prior to them going in space that demonstrated much the same type of behavior of the hair and all the other shit on display, except it wasn't videoed in space.

What video was that? I haven't seen any video of them in space prior to them being in space. Please post or point to what you're referring to. Or are you just making this up?
Read the thread.

I’ve read the thread, and I don’t see any videos showing them experiencing 0g, other than in the vomet comet. So show us one, or we’ll just conclude that it doesn’t exist.
I was wrong about that. Thought it was here.

Well done for admitting your error.

So is there such a video, anywhere, or not? Because if there isn’t, that does somewhat undermine your previous arguments, doesn’t it? We have the crew floating around, looking very much like they are in 0g (hair, orientation, puffy faces, floating objects) interacting in real time with some kids and adults on earth, some of whom are known to the crew. How on earth (!) would you go about faking that?

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Civilians in Space
« on: September 21, 2021, 11:33:28 AM »
Jesus H Christ?

Why do they have to be in space?

Cause they said so?

No.

Wy can't they be in space? Because you say so?
Where did I state that?
Cause I saw a video prior to them going in space that demonstrated much the same type of behavior of the hair and all the other shit on display, except it wasn't videoed in space.

What video was that? I haven't seen any video of them in space prior to them being in space. Please post or point to what you're referring to. Or are you just making this up?
Read the thread.

I’ve read the thread, and I don’t see any videos showing them experiencing 0g, other than in the vomet comet. So show us one, or we’ll just conclude that it doesn’t exist.

20
Flat Earth Media / Re: 4% of Poles Believe the Earth is Flat
« on: September 20, 2021, 07:55:40 PM »
very interesting i would like to know more

I’m not really clear what is being suggested here. The Nixon conversation with Apollo 11 is very obviously subject to the same 2.5 second delay that all of the radio comms were. It’s on YouTube.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20  Next >