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 - cikljamas

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 19, 2019, 01:55:52 PM »
Sun's path along the equator (at Equinoxes) on Sandokhan's flat earth map :


In this illustration we see one half of sun's path, and Sandokhan is going to designate for us the second half of sun's Equinox path across his flat earth map...After he manage to do that i will personally hand him over Nobel prize for physics, geology and common sense!!! 

2
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY POSTS?
« on: October 17, 2019, 02:24:35 PM »
No posts were deleted. Your post, and the rationale for why it got moved out of its thread, are right here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15473.msg200444#msg200444

As for your questions about the 1st Amendment: We are not Congress.

Please note that you're expected to be constructive in the upper fora. Long stream-of-consciousness rants that go from "why was my post deleted" to "the CIA did 9/11" don't work very well on an online forum. If you want to create a thread about how evil Nazis are running the world, do so in the appropriate sub-board, stay on topic, and give the excessive formatting a rest.

You are asking me to be constructive in the upper fora?

Well, i think i am doing everything that i can to be constructive.

Would you like me to show you my constructiveness?

Quote from: cikljamas on Today at 12:41:52 PM

        Since when citing US presidents, admirals, generals, and estimated intellectuals (many of whom are Jews) is a complete nonsense?

Quote from: markjo on Today at 01:25:26 PM

Since the time when it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

My reply to markjo :

OMG, it has everything to do with the topic of the thread!!! Everyone can see it from an airplane!!! You could see it too, only if you wanted!!!

Your reply to my reply to markjo :

You can see from an airplane that you got banned from theflatearthsociety.org?

My little rant to your reply :

Exactly, and when i presented the "reasons" for their fascist act of banning me (for no actual reason, at all) nobody (except Tom Bishop) had anything constructive to say on this issue!!!
Not only that, you are treating me in almost identical way as they did...
You have nothing constructive to say on this topic, and then you are moving my thread from one subforum to another...
What is going to be your next step?
Banning me???
What will be your excuse for banning me?
Same as their "excuse"?
Unfounded accusations for antisemitism and racism?
Had i posted anything that was really antisemitic or anti-racial you would have banned me, already
I've posted many posts many of which are still there at flatearthsociety.org, and these posts didn't bother them too much, until they figured out that they have nothing constructive to say, and then some zionists started to complain about my writings (actually about my freedom of speech) which they could't discredit in any other way besides simply yelling ANTISEMITISM!!!
Then one of the moderators banned me without no reasonable, or founded explanation by simply yelling ANTISEMITISM!!!
So, why don't you point us to one single "historical lie" that i have spouted out in this thread?
On the other hand, if you can't refute any single fact that i wrote here, then why don't you leave me alone?
How come you are unable to answer even so simple question as this :
Since when citing US presidents, admirals, generals, and estimated intellectuals (many of whom are Jews) is a complete nonsense?

THE QUESTION :

Why are you treating me in almost identical way as they did???

THE SOLUTION :

Had you left my thread in the original place where i opened it (or at least at the first subforum where you firstly moved it), i wouldn't have opened this thread in the first place...

You see, by simply leaving me alone, everything would be just fine...

So, i remind you once again : even though you are not congress you should care about freedom of speech!

Finally, don't you think you owe me (or to be more precise : don't you think you owe this to yourself) a simple answer to my simple question :

Since when citing US presidents, admirals, generals, and estimated intellectuals (many of whom are Jews) is a complete nonsense?

3
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY POSTS?
« on: October 17, 2019, 01:45:33 PM »
So, if you are unable to answer this simple question, maybe you should be reminded on this :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is 1th amendment still valid in US???

If 1th amendment is not valid in US anymore, then we have to take into consideration what has happened at 9/11 2001?
It seems to me that 9/11 was about fascism :

fascism noun : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Was 9/11 engineered and designed to allow the Bush administration to hijack America’s democracy?


The current political landscape reveals a divided nation. Many feel that the Trump Administration is steering America’s government in a totalitarian direction. Death of a Nation traces the beginnings of this shift in political climate, its development, and where it may be headed.

Was 9/11 engineered and designed to allow the Bush administration to hijack America’s democracy? Did fear mongering allow the US government to convince the American public that conducting huge, expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was a necessary counter to defeat fabricated culprits in the Middle East? Was this all a plot to induce a financial boom that robbed the middle class of its wealth and brought the world to its knees in 2008?

Examining the key players within America’s government, as well as the states that supported and carried out the attacks, Death of a Nation attempts to reveal that 9/11 was falsely portrayed by the Bush administration, and in fact carried out by elements within the United States government and military to further their own geopolitical and financial interests.

Death of a Nation provides a searing indictment of the role now played by America in global affairs and warns that, with a broken society and body politic, the world is seeing the rise of one of the most overtly fascist nations since the Second World War—creating profoundly disturbing implications for the future of humanity.

A generation is coming of age that doesn’t remember 9/11 happening, and knows of no world but this. We can’t allow this to be the new normal. Death of a Nation will change your view of the events of 9/11 and force you to question America’s self-appointed position as leader of the free world.



4
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY POSTS?
« on: October 17, 2019, 01:07:49 PM »
This is the post that you deleted :

I am a grad student in Scotland. I am doing a research project on how groups of people obtain information. I was wondering if anyone would be willing to be interviewed for my project. It would only be about how you go about getting your information about the earth being flat. Thanks in advance!
Maybe you want to research this :


Or this :

DP:  A  key  point  is:  if  one  is  performing  an  experiment  and  claiming  that  it  completely  overthrows  the  foundations  of  modern  physics,  one  must  make  it  bulletproof or it will not be believed or accepted. At a minimum this means that a comprehensive   error   analysis   must   be   included,   direct   measurements   of   important  systematic  errors  must  be  performed,  and  whatever  “signal”  is  found  must be statistically significant. None of these experiments come anywhere close to making a convincing case that they are valid and refute SR. This is based on a basic  and  elementary  analysis  of  the  experimenters'  technique,  not  on  the  mere  fact that they disagree with the predictions of SR. Most of these experiments are shown to be invalid (or at least not inconsistent with SR) by a simple application of  the  elementary  error  analysis  or  other  arguments  relating  to  error  bars,  showing how important that is to the believability of a result—the authors merely found patterns.

RS:  First  of  all,  the  MMX  experiment  was  done  BEFORE  Special  Relativity  was  invented to attempt to explain it. Thus MMX wasn’t done to “overthrow” SRT, since SRT didn’t exist at that point.  Second,  Roberts  was  obviously  in  favor  of  SRT  before  he  did  his  analysis.  As  such,  he  makes it sound as if SRT has no problems of its own, outside of the interferometer issue, but  it  does,  and  they  are  legion.  The  contradictions  inherent  in  SRT  have  been  the  subject  of  many  papers  since  the  time  Einstein  proposed  it.  All  of  them  are  listed  in  GWW,  but  few  people  act  on  it  because  almost  all  of  modern  academia  is  built  on  Einstein’s theories, and if you question his theories you will be out of a job, and that has been proven over and over again.

5
Suggestions & Concerns / WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY POSTS?
« on: October 17, 2019, 01:05:38 PM »
So, if you are unable to answer this simple question, maybe you should be reminded on this :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is 1th amendment still valid in US???

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 09:36:30 PM »
You are trolling the debate, since you have nothing else to say.

I am trolling the debate for repeating the question and for reminding you what is/was the topic of our greatest concern here (since the very begining of this thread - after you joined the debate)? Soon after you joined the debate i mentioned (incidentally) the shape of the earth and your reply was something like : "We are talking about MGPX, not about the shape of the earth!"...
All of a sudden you want to talk about the shape of the earth, and in the same time i am the one who is trolling the debate...
Congratulations!!!

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 09:06:05 PM »
You are grasping at straws.

You tried this sort of argument before, it was debunked easily:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70614.msg1916123#msg1916123

Well, i didn't expect our conversation was going to end up (be so akin to...) like this :
Dr Robert Sungenis vs Allegedly Sane Flat Earther (hilarious excerpt) :


This would matter if Australia existed - flat earth for dummies :


FLAT EARTH PROBLEM (LISTEN IT VERY CAREFULLY) :


We were talking about MGPX, remember :

ASSERTION NO 1 :
The system of interference-fringes produced by the superposition of the two pencils-one of which has traversed the circuit clockwise, and the other counterclockwise-would be shifted through seven-tenths of the distance between the fringes, in the direction corresponding to a retardation of the clockwise pencil, if the experiment were tried in the Northern hemisphere.

You see, we have to deal with a degree of retardation of the CW pencil (which is smaller in the northern hemisphere) wrt a degree of retardation of the CCW pencil (which is greater in the northern hemisphere)...

So, if both beams were to be retarded then how would we get the difference in the speed between two beams (both beams travel in both directions (one beam goes firstly right then left, another beam goes firstly left, then right), and both parallel tubes are of the same length), that is to say, what would cause fringe shifts if both beams were to be retarded?

To be perfectly correct we have to admit that both beams would be retarded, indeed, however :

CW beam would be less retarded, because going along southern tube (in the northern hemisphere) CW beam would go in the same direction in which aether flows...
CCW beam would be more retarded, because going along southern tube CCW beam would go in an opposite direction wrt the direction of aether's flow...
That is what makes the difference (which beams goes with or against aether's flow through the tube along which aether's speed is greater), if you think that you can point us towards some other cause (mechanics) of fringe shifts, let us know...

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 08:42:08 PM »
So I was right, you "forgot" to tell everyone here that you were using the unipolar FE map.

Can you designate sun's path along this map?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818

It rises from beyond Japan and illuminates at least half of the entire surface (not a spotlight sun at all), and sets somewhere beyond Antarctica...

Is this your designation/description of sun's path on that map?

If yes, then there is a very big hole in that description, since i would like to know where is the sun all the way (and at every moment) while traveling between sunrise (over Japan) and sunset (beyond Antarctica)...


9
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 08:23:46 PM »
In the real FE map, the ether drift will be latitude dependent exactly as in the case of a spherical earth:



Can you designate sun's path on/along this map?

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 08:14:50 PM »
ASSERTION NO 1 :
The system of interference-fringes produced by the superposition of the two pencils-one of which has traversed the circuit clockwise, and the other counterclockwise-would be shifted through seven-tenths of the distance between the fringes, in the direction corresponding to a retardation of the clockwise pencil, if the experiment were tried in the Northern hemisphere.

You see, we have to deal with a degree of retardation of the CW pencil (which is smaller in the northern hemisphere) wrt a degree of retardation of the CCW pencil (which is greater in the northern hemisphere)...

So, if both beams were to be retarded then how would we get the difference in the speed between two beams (both beams travel in both directions (one beam goes firstly right then left, another beam goes firstly left, then right), and both parallel tubes are of the same length), that is to say, what would cause fringe shifts if both beams were to be retarded?

To be perfectly correct we have to admit that both beams would be retarded, indeed, however :

CW beam would be less retarded, because going along southern tube (in the northern hemisphere) CW beam would go in the same direction in which aether flows...
CCW beam would be more retarded, because going along southern tube CCW beam would go in an opposite direction wrt the direction of aether's flow...
That is what makes the difference (which beams goes with or against aether's flow through the tube along which aether's speed is greater), if you think that you can point us towards some other cause (mechanics) of fringe shifts, let us know...

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 07:19:32 PM »
Why would you have both the cw and ccw light beams retarded in the southern hemisphere/semiplane, while you maintain that only the ccw light beam would be retarded in the northern hemisphere/semiplane?

Now we came finally to the core of this problem, that is why i asked you to try to answer to my questions above in layman terms...

This is how i understand the core of MGPX :

In the northern hemisphere the beam which travels in CCW direction is retarded because southern tube is closer to the equator and aether flows faster along southern tube than along northern tube (i will clarify this even further if needed)

In the southern hemisphere the beam which travels in CW direction is retarded because the tube which is closer to us is again closer to the equator and aether again flows faster along that tube which is closer to us and parallel to the equator than along the tube which is farther from us and parallel to the equator, but this time our rectangle is 180 degrees rotated and that is why direction of the retarded beam is reversed...

However, on the flat earth aether would flow faster along the tube which is farther from us and that would cause second reversal (cancellation of the first reversal due our reorientation for 180 degrees) of the direction of the retarded beam...

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 06:52:18 PM »
You are aware, of course, of how the Coriolis force acts on objects on a spherical Earth, are you not?

On a flat earth, the sense of rotation of the ether drift reverses once you cross the equator.

You still cannot explain the MGX unless you make use of my formula.

Sandokhan, i am not sure if you are aware that i am right or you maybe think that for some specific reason i misunderstood something, but :

A) if there is (within my two questions) something/anything that you don't understand feel free to ask, maybe you understand MGPX procedure better than me (i am not afraid to be wrong, are you? ...although i don't think i am wrong in this case, however, i can't be sure 100 % about anything, since we all make mistakes, all the time, don't we?)...
B) if there is something/anything in my two questions that you maybe think that i misunderstood (misinterpreted) for some specific reason, care to point us to my precise logical (or scientific (technical)) error...

So, i repeat :

In the southern hemisphere our rectangle has to be rotated 180 degrees, now we are facing south, what is going to happen now?

1. Why would now (unlike in the northern hemisphere) the beam traversing the rectangle in clockwise direction on the spherical earth be retarded?

2. Why would now the beam traversing the rectangle in counter-clockwise direction (just like in the northern hemisphere) on the flat earth be retarded?

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 06:29:22 PM »
I have answered it already: on a rotating Earth, the delay is caused by the Coriolis effect of the rotational movement itself. On a stationary Earth (either RE/FE), the delay is caused by the rotating ether drift which is latitude dependent.

Are you kidding me?

In the southern hemisphere our rectangle has to be rotated 180 degrees, now we are facing south, what is going to happen now?

1. Why would now (unlike in the northern hemisphere) the beam traversing the rectangle in clockwise direction on the spherical earth be retarded?

2. Why would now the beam traversing the rectangle in counter-clockwise direction (just like in the northern hemisphere) on the flat earth be retarded?

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 04:23:29 PM »
The real reason for the retardation of the counterclock-wise beam can be found here, a paper posted earlier:

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/39778/InTech-Gps_and_the_one_way_speed_of_light.pdf

"Light travels faster westward than eastward relative to the surface of the Earth. Specifically
the one-way measurement of light speed using GPS data in (6) clearly indicates that a signal
sent eastward travels at speed c minus the rotational speed of the Earth v at that latitude
giving c  - v. The GPS data available in (10) also shows that a signal sent westward travels at
speed c plus the rotational speed of the Earth v at that latitude giving c + v."

Nice...we have made some progress here...

The beam traversing the rectangle in a counter-clockwise direction was retarded because MGPX was performed in Northern Hemisphere.

Had it been performed in Southern Hemisphere the beam traversing the rectangle in clockwise direction would have been retarded.

The question is : Why?

How would you answer this question to someone who is encountering this issue for the first time (from the scratch)?

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 03:34:43 PM »
How come that the beam traversing the rectangle in a counter-clockwise direction was retarded (ASSERTION NO 2) given what is stated in ASSERTION NO 1?

You extracted quotes from papers published 21 years apart.

So what? We are discussing the results of an experiment which was conducted 94 years ago, and still (94 years later) there does not exist a peer-reviewed paper that has ever disputed the results of 1925 MGX, much less disprove them.

Thanks for your exhaustive math procedure intended to answer my question, but i would appreciate if you could answer that question in layman terms (without using mathematical formulas) : how come that Michelson 21 years ahead (in 1904) claims something which is in direct contradiction with the result of his experiment conducted in 1925?

Once again :

ASSERTION NO 1 :
The system of interference-fringes produced by the superposition of the two pencils-one of which has traversed the circuit clockwise, and the other counterclockwise-would be shifted through seven-tenths of the distance between the fringes, in the direction corresponding to a retardation of the clockwise pencil, if the experiment were tried in the Northern hemisphere.

ASSERTION NO 2 :
Experimental  Test  of  Theory.— Air was exhausted from a twelve-inch pipe line laid on the surface of the ground in the form of  a  rectangle  2010× 1113  feet.  Light  from  a carbon arc was divided at one comer by a thinly coated mirror into direct and reflected beams,  which were reflected  around  the  rectangle by mirrors  at  the  comers.  The  two beams returning to  the original mirror produced interference  fringes.  The beam trav­ersing  the  rectangle in  a  counter-clockwise  direction  was  retarded.  The  observed  dis­placement of the fringes was found to be 0.230± .005, agreeing with the computed value0.236± .002 within the limits of experimental error.

Let's put it more directly : why the beam traversing the rectangle in a counter-clockwise direction was retarded?
Or to be even more precise : why the beam traversing the rectangle in a counter-clockwise direction (not in a clockwise direction, as Michelson stated in his earlier paper (from 1904.)) would have to be retarded if the experiment were tried in the Northern hemisphere?
Care to answer it in layman terms (for our broader audience)...I know the correct answer to this question, however i guess many of our viewers would have difficulties with answering that question relying solely on their own knowledge...so...let's try to be educative...

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 10:45:32 AM »
However, the statistics work in the RE's favor:

They will simply use the formula derived by Michelson and claim victory:

The figures for the area of the path, latitude (41deg. 46'), wavelength of the light, speed of light, and the expected fringe shifts are well known.
Expected fringe shift: 0.2364
Measured fringe shift: 0.230 +/- 0.005
Then, the angular velocity of the Earth can be easily computed.
The RE have the precise formula, the other participants in the discussion have NOTHING.
The other participants in the discussion = Flat Earthers (exclusively)

So, since you believe that the earth is flat, and MGPX presumes spherical shape of the earth, then you have to find the way how to discredit MGPX, so that you can keep claiming that the earth is flat. Jesus Christ, even Aristotles (2500 years ago) knew that the earth was spherically shaped...

The SAGNAC EFFECT will always prove the rotation of the interferometer itself and Michelson claimed that the formula derived by him is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula. It is this claim that you have to disprove if you want to explain the experiment.

The SAGNAC EFFECT will not always prove the rotation of the interferometer itself!!!

The SAGNAC EFFECT proves rotation of aether, once again just for you :

Moreover, there does not exist a peer-reviewed paper that has ever disputed the results of 1925 MGX, much less disprove them.  In fact, if anything, the results of that  experiment are virtually kept silent in modern academia. I believe there is a good reason for this silence, for if it became known that the same principle of ether-drift was used in two different experiments (MMX and MGX) measuring two different things (revolution v. rotation) and the former showed no drift but the latter showed a full drift, the physics world  would  be  in  a  total  conundrum. It would virtually prove that the Earth was  motionless in space and that the universe rotated around it.  The option that the Earth could be rotating but not revolving around the sun would not be possible, because in that scenario the Earth could not show the seasons, only day and night.

So, the heliocentrists spend all their time trying to show that MMX-type experiments are null and then try to claim this means light is constant and the Earth moves. This takes our eyes off the more important results in the 1925 MGX experiment in which the ether exists and the speed of light is not constant (besides the option that the alternative interpretation of MMX is that the Earth doesn’t move and light is not constant).

So, Sandokhan spends all his time trying to show that MGPX is not valid so that he can continue to claim that the earth is flat! OMG

For those who don't understand how and why MGPX presumes spherical shape of the earth :

Relative motion of earth and Aether (Sandokhan, pay attention to the word in red) : http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdf
Quote from an article above :

ASSERTION NO 1 :
The system of interference-fringes produced by the superposition of the two pencils-one of which has traversed the circuit clockwise, and the other counterclockwise-would be shifted through seven-tenths of the distance between the fringes, in the direction corresponding to a retardation of the clockwise pencil, if the experiment were tried in the Northern hemisphere.

So the experiment has been carried out in the Northern hemisphere :
Now the quote from this article : http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Michelson_Gale_1925/Michelson_Gale_1925.pdf

ASSERTION NO 2 :
Experimental  Test  of  Theory.— Air was exhausted from a twelve-inch pipe line laid on the surface of the ground in the form of  a  rectangle  2010× 1113  feet.  Light  from  a carbon arc was divided at one comer by a thinly coated mirror into direct and reflected beams,  which were reflected  around  the  rectangle by mirrors  at  the  comers.  The  two beams returning to  the original mirror produced interference  fringes.  The beam trav­ersing  the  rectangle in  a  counter-clockwise  direction  was  retarded.  The  observed  dis­placement of the fringes was found to be 0.230± .005, agreeing with the computed value0.236± .002 within the limits of experimental error.

Now, one little technical question for Sandokhan :
How come that the beam traversing the rectangle in a counter-clockwise direction was retarded (ASSERTION NO 2) given what is stated in ASSERTION NO 1?

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 15, 2019, 04:07:31 PM »
If you agree that Michelson published the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, then the RE win hands down.
Can you understand that the Sagnac effect proves the ROTATION of the interferometer itself?


RE win hands down?
What the shape of the earth has to do with this?
You meant to say : HC win hands down?
No HC don't win hands down, GC win hands down!

WIKI QUOTE :
Because the Earth spins, Earth-bound observers need to account for the Coriolis force to correctly analyze the motion of objects. The Earth completes one rotation per day, so for motions of everyday objects the Coriolis force is usually quite small compared to other forces; its effects generally become noticeable only for motions occurring over large distances and long periods of time, such as large-scale movement of air in the atmosphere or water in the ocean.

Be that as it may, the Sagnac effect is seen in many places, since it is an established fact that two beams of light heading in different directions are going to have a discrepancy in their speed. This is shown by the Sagnac correction that is built into the GPS system to make it work. EM waves going east-to-west go faster than EM waves going west-to-east, but  the  distance  between the GPS satellite remains the same, and thus the GPS computers have to be adjusted by the Sagnac results to account for the anisotropy of the EM waves.

Moreover, there does not exist a peer-reviewed paper that has ever disputed the results of 1925 MGX, much less disprove them.  In fact, if anything, the results of that  experiment are virtually kept silent in modern academia. I believe there is a good reason for this silence, for if it became known that the same principle of ether-drift was used in two different experiments (MMX and MGX) measuring two different things (revolution v. rotation) and the former showed no drift but the latter showed a full drift, the physics world  would  be  in  a  total  conundrum. It would virtually prove that the Earth was  motionless in space and that the universe rotated around it.  The option that the Earth could be rotating but not revolving around the sun would not be possible, because in that scenario the Earth could not show the seasons, only day and night.

So, the heliocentrists spend all their time trying to show that MMX-type experiments are null and then try to claim this means light is constant and the Earth moves. This takes our eyes off the more important results in the 1925 MGX experiment in which the ether exists and the speed of light is not constant (besides the option that the alternative interpretation of MMX is that the Earth doesn’t move and light is not constant).

Since MGX measured 98% of the ether drift expected for a 0.46km/sec rotation, we have all the evidence we need, not only for a daily rotation but for the existence of the ether, since MGX could only measure ether, since the experiment was done in a vacuum, not in a gaseous medium.

We have to ask this question : Had coriolis force had any effect on MGPX what kind of effect would have it been?
Would coriolis force have impeded light beams or would have it deflected them?
If we suppose that coriolis force had had an impeding effect, how significant would have been such an effect on light beams, and in which direction?
Impeding effect on light beams that travel in one direction would be canceled out by acceleration of light beams that travel in an opposite direction.
On the other hand, deflecting effect would cause light beams to miss the target (the receiver) so that correct reading would be impossible (how could light waves travel in a straight line, anyway, if coriolis force could affect light?)...
All in all, bringing coriolis force in the context of MGPX is in my opinion a complete idiocy...

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 15, 2019, 02:17:49 PM »
SAGNAC = ROTATION OF AETHER

For the Sagnac effect to take place, you ALREADY have the ether drift rotating.

What the SAGNAC EFFECT does, is to prove the ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER ITSELF.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect, the slight lateral deflection of the light beams. It can be caused either by the hypothesized rotation of the Earth or by the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth, for a stationary interferometer (MGX/RLGs).

However, the SAGNAC EFFECT is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: you need THE ROTATION of the interferometer itself in order to record the actual Sagnac effect.

Can you understand the difference?

For the Coriolis effect, the interferometer can be stationary, while the ether drift rotates above it, producing the effect.

For the Sagnac effect, the interferometer MUST BE ROTATING in order to register the effect.
You are the only person in the world who claims this. I have never heard of a similar example of confusing coriolis force with sagnac effect, especially not in the context of MMX, MGPX and alike sort of experiments...
Then it came to my mind the following question : Sandokhan also claims that the earth is flat, and we all must agree that such a weird claim can't be anything else but the consequence of a gigantic logical and scientific confusion in Sandokhan's mind... So what are the odds that Sandokhan knows what he is talking about in the context of MGPX in which case he is obviously confusing coriolis force with sagnac effect, as well... Should i (or anyone else) be really surprised with such a weird Sandokhan's claims given the fact that he is the only person in the world who implies that all heliocentrists and geocentrists in the whole world are totally wrong regarding their principally the same interpretation of MGPX, and that only he (Sandokhan) knows how to correctly interpret results of that experiment?

Expected fringe shift: 0.2364

Measured fringe shift: 0.230 +/- 0.005

So the 1925 MGX measured the ether at “an insane level of precision...”

How can you justify such an insane level of precision and such an insanely small difference between expected fringe shift and measured fringe shift given the fact that (as you yourself stated) the formula published by Michelson is ACCEPTED to be the SAGNAC EFFECT formula and that everyone accepts this fact, RE, GE, FE?

So, they firstly used sagnac effect formula (not coriolis effect formula) to determine (before conducting experiment) correct value for the expected fring shift, then they conducted experiment and the result of the experiment (measured fringe shift) was practically the same as the expected fringe shift, and you still don't notice any problem with your weird claims???

Here is the most important part.

If the center of rotation of the interferometer (MGX/RLGs) does not coincide with the geometrical center of the interferometer itself, then for the same rotating interferometer, ONE WILL RECORD BOTH THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

That is, if the Earth is rotating around its own axis, you will register BOTH THE SAGNAC AND THE CORIOLIS EFFECTS.

For the RE/relativists, the ether does exist, no problem at all.

Can everyone understand? The ether envelope around the Earth is stationary and translational (it moves along with the Earth on its orbital motion).

No problem for the MGX/RLGs.

Here we are talking about ROTATION.

Here we are talking about ROTATION OF AETHER!

Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:

    The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.
    The Sagnac effect shows that two rays of light, emanated from the same light source in different directions on a rotating platform, require different times to come back to the light source. However, if the aether is completely dragged by the platform this effect should not occur at all.

Complete aether dragging is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. In this illustration, imagine the stars to be infinitely distant. Aberration occurs when the observer's velocity has a component that is perpendicular to the line traveled by the light incoming from the star. As seen in the animation on the left, the telescope must be tilted before the star will appear in the center of the eyepiece. As seen in the animation of the right, if the aether is dragged in the vicinity of the earth, then the telescope must be pointed directly at the star for the star to appear in the center of the eyepiece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#/media/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

In 1845 George Stokes (1819-1903), objecting to the notion that a massive body such as the Earth could move through the ether without disturbing it, advocated that stellar aberration was caused by the Earth
dragging along all of the ether near its surface as it rotates, which he coined “the etherosphere,” and which theory Michelson “revered above all others” (Loyd Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, p. 24).

In 1849 Stokes suggested that the ether was not dragged by the moving glass plate, but that the ether within the plate was compacted. In his work with light diffraction around opaque bodies and light diffraction in the sky, he showed that the vibration of ether particles is at right angles to the plane of polarization. The same did not hold for crystals, so Stokes reversed Cauchy’s hypothesis, making the elastic properties of ether the same in all materials, but allowing the inertia to be anisotropic. In the end, Stokes’ ether behaves as a rigid solid for high-frequency oscillations of light but as a fluid for the slow moving celestial bodies. In 1867, further experiments forced Stokes to withdraw his theory, (cf., G. G. Stokes, “On the Aberration of Light,” Philosophical Magazine 27, pp. 9-15, 1845; “On Fresnel’s Theory of the Aberration of Light,” Philosophical Magazine 28, pp. 76-81, 1846; “On the Constitution of the Luminiferous Ether Viewed with Reference to the Phenomenon of the Aberration of Light,” Philosophical Magazine 29, pp. 6-10, 1846; “On the Constitution of the Luminiferous Ether,” Philosophical Magazine 32, pp. 343-349, 1848).

A MMX shows that there is no orbital motion of the earth.

B Airy's failure shows that there is no orbital motion of the earth, also.

B MGPX proved beyond reasonable doubt that the aether rotates once per day around the motionless earth.

D Sagnac experiment proved that aether exists.

E An open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.

F An open-loop Sagnac effect principally can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth, however since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead such principally possible (but practically refuted) interpretation, an open-loop Sagnac effect must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 15, 2019, 10:49:39 AM »
SAGNAC = ROTATION
If you accept that Michelson recorded the Sagnac effect, the RE win hands down.
Michelson-Morley interferometer = Sagnac interferometer, so we are back to the same situation.
Once you answer yes, it is all over.
SAGNAC = ROTATION OF AETHER

Your statements are very eloquent and would be applicable to our discussion here if and only if you can disprove the RE's main contention point: the SAGNAC EFFECT formula proves rotation.

The CORIOLIS effect proves rotation which however can be attributed to two different causes: either the Earth is rotating, or the ether drift causes the effect.

NO such ambiguity applies to the SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is most certainly not an irrefragable proof of Earth's rotation

But it is, once you agree with Michelson and Gale that the following formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula:



Sagnac's interferometer proves ROTATION.
Sagnac's interferometer proves ROTATION OF AETHER AROUND MOTIONLESS EARTH!!!

Really, inconsistency ends the discussion.

The statistical data works in the RE's favor.

They will remind you yet again that the SAGNAC effect proves rotation.
I will remind you yet again that the SAGNAC effect proves ROTATION OF AETHER AROUND MOTIONLESS EARTH!!!

As far as whether the right equations are even being used, I doubt it. It looks a bit different than the sagnac formula

The formula published by Michelson is ACCEPTED to be the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Everyone accepts this fact, RE, GE, FE.

Sungenis, the foremost geocentrist in the world, accepts this as well.

Let us now apply this formula to the MGX.



The figures for the area of the path, latitude (41deg. 46'), wavelength of the light, speed of light, and the expected fringe shifts are well known.

Expected fringe shift: 0.2364

Measured fringe shift: 0.230 +/- 0.005

Then, the angular velocity of the Earth can be easily computed.
Then, the angular velocity of aether's rotation around motionless earth can be easily computed.

ON TOP OF THAT :

DP: On   the   Luminiferous/Electropon   Ether: Now, more broadly on ether experiments, yes, I have objections to your explanation concerning Michelson-Morley (MMX), Michelson-Gale (MGX), and the  luminiferous/electropon ether (below  just  “ether”. This must be distinguished from the second  flavor of ether in GWW, the “Planck ether” which GWW states cannot be detected by today’s  Interferometers: see GWW1, p. 619.)

RS: It doesn’t matter what the ether is made of. Whatever ether is, it was measured by the 1925 MGX at 98% of what was expected, and that is a fact of empirical science. Thus it detected the daily rotation between Earth and space.  Conversely,   the   1881 – 1930   MMX-type   experiments   and   the   current   sapphire   resonators,  using  the  same  ether  principle  but  in  a  different  mounting  than  MGX,  did  not measure a revolution of the Earth around the sun. Those are the facts.  You choose to answer the MMX-type results by assuming there is no ether and making light  speed  constant.  But  then  you  are  stuck  with  MGX,  which  can’t  be  explained  by  assuming  there  is  no  ether and that light speed is constant. If you will, the 1925 MGX measured the ether at “an insane level of precision,” and it also measured differences in the  speed  of  light  between  the  two  tubes.  That  is  your  dilemma.  If  you  can’t  explain  MGX, then you really have no explanation for MMX.

DP: Basically my position is this: There is no coherent ether model that can make sense of  the  results  from  both  MM  and  Sagnac  interferometers.  Taken as a whole, interferometer experiments demonstrate that  the ether does not exist. Therefore, by itself failure to detect it lends no support for or against a moving Earth or a motionless Earth.

RS: Your reasoning is illogical. Again,  the 1925 MGX  measured the exact amount of ether expected for a relative rotation between Earth and space.  So we know there is an ether, since we must acknowledge that some kind of substance in the vacuum tubes made the light split into interference fringes on the receiver in the MGX experiment.  We also know that the most plausible reason why the 1887 MMX didn’t detect any ether is not because the ether does not exist (since we see the ether in the MGX experiment) but because the Earth isn’t moving against the ether, and that is because the Earth is not revolving around the sun. The logic speaks for itself. Your challenge is not so much with MMX or Sagnac. Your challenge is answering the dilemma you have between the 1887 MMX and the 1925 MGX.

IN ADDITION :

No relativist today would dream of disputing the findings of the Sagnac experiment. Most transoceanic planes, nuclear submarines and communications satellites navigate today with laser ring gyroscopes that utilize the Sagnac effect for position location. The accuracy of the original Sagnac experiment has been estimated at 1:100, but a repetition of the Sagnac experiment with lasers, in 1963, by Macek and Davis, confirmed the result to 1:10^12.

Curiously, many relativists and experimentalists get caught in their ignorance of the Sagnac effect. In 1979, Brillet and Hall reported a null result (absence of frequency shift) with frequency-locked laser beams, one set in a rotating interferometer, and the other kept stationary, and thus concluded  in favour of the isotropy of space. However, not only did they observe a 50 Hz signal at precisely the rotation rate of the turntable employed, but also another more troublesome signal, at 17Hz.

Aspden, who has suggested  that  the null result may well be  the  inevitable consequence of such  frequency-locked  laser  tests because "the frequency of the lasers will adjust to the reorientation of the apparatus exactly to cancel any effect due to motion through the  light-reference frame", commented on the 17Hz frequency shift findings of Brillet and Hall, which had been ignored by them as a "persistent spurious signal":

"Interpreting  the 17 Hz signal as the second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the laser frequency 8.85*1013 Hz, we find the ratio 1.92*10^-13 and, as  this  is 0.131  (v/c)^2, we  find  that v/c  is 1.21*10^-6, giving v as 363 m/sec.   If our theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the west-east speed of  earth  rotation  at Boulder, Colorado.  Being  at  40°N, Boulder  has,  in  fact,  an  earth rotation speed of 355 m/sec." Apparently, Brillet and Hall were conducting a control on the MGP experiment using the Sagnac effect to detect the earth's speed of rotation and with the required resolution, without knowing it!

More recently still, there have been confirmations of  the Sagnac effect for electrons and neutrons. In 1993, Hasselbach and Nicklaus reported a shift of 0.06 fringes using rotating electron beams. The result clearly indicates that atmospheric charges flow faster westward than in the opposite direction.  Werner et al confirmed the Sagnac effect with neutron interferometry. With a swiveling apparatus, they showed that if the interferometer rotated  in  a N-S  plane  the  effect was extinguished, whereas in a W-E plane it was  at a maximum.

20
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 14, 2019, 04:26:43 PM »
The video is of no help to the FE/GE.

On the contrary, the author cannot explain the MGX and has to make use of the Airy experiment.

The RE can dismiss the video in no time at all: do you agree that the formula published by Michelson describes the SAGNAC EFFECT?

If the answer of the author is yes, he is helpless.

If the answer is no, then the RE will require the correct formula.

1. Of course he measured Sagnac effect (aether confirmed), and he would have been helpless had he tried to interpret his result as the proof in favor of earth's rotation. As Malcolm Bowden pointed out (in the video above) Michelson refrained from any kind of interpretations of the result of his experiment. It speaks volumes, i would say...

2. There is no FE/GE dispute whatsoever...since everyone knows (at least since the time of Aristotles (he lived 2500 years ago)) that the earth is spherically shaped.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >