### 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 - sandokhan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 12:33:30 PM »
No.

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

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

That is, c>>v.

2
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 12:04:56 PM »
My formula was also obtained by Professor P. Yeh in 1985, using phase-conjugate mirrors:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a206219.pdf

Studies of phase-conjugate optical devices concepts

US OF NAVAL RESEARCH, Physics Division

Dr. P. Yeh
PhD, Caltech, Nonlinear Optics
Principal Scientist of the Optics Department at Rockwell International Science Center
Professor, UCSB
"Engineer of the Year," at Rockwell Science Center
Leonardo da Vinci Award in 1985
Fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

page 152 of the pdf document, section Recent Advances in Photorefractive Nonlinear Optics page 4

The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.

Phase-Conjugate Multimode Fiber Gyro

Published in the Journal of Optics Letters, vol. 12, page 1023, 1987

page 69 of the pdf document, page 1 of the article

A second confirmation of the fact that my formula is correct.

Here is the first confirmation:

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)

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

The very same formula obtained for a Sagnac interferometer which features two different lengths and two different velocities.

What I did is to derive the formula in the context of the Michelson-Gale experiment and also for ring laser gyroscopes. It is by far the biggest contribution to the field of light interferometry since 1913 when G. Sagnac conducted the first such experiment under strict conditions.

3
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 23, 2021, 10:59:27 AM »
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.

4
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 01:19:47 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.

5
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 11:31:12 AM »
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.

No. Sagnac came up with the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula. Eight years later, Dr. L. Silberstein finally made the distinction, and proved that light interferometers were detecting the Coriolis effect indeed.

All interferometers are using the Coriolis effect formula, which features an area and the angular velocity.

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.

No.

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.

However, if you now place that interferometer somewhere else, and it is stationary, trying to detect the supposed rotation of the Earth, it will only detect the Coriolis effect. Had the Earth been rotating, it would have registered the Sagnac effect as well.

6
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 11:01:52 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.

7
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 10:25:11 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.

8
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 09:18:25 AM »
v =  ωr

But that is nothing compared to the main issue. Why didn't Michelson and Gale detect the much larger Sagnac effect on the light beams?

9
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 22, 2021, 08:52:43 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

10
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 21, 2021, 08:49:19 PM »
Note to everyone who is following this discussion: without the correct Sagnac effect formula, the RE can claim immediately that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, and there's nothing the FE/UAFE can do about it (see the Bob Knodel episode).

This is one of the main reasons why the other FES forum has been hijacked by the RE (admin + mods), in order to cause as much mayhem as possible, so that there could be no meaningful debate about the MGX/RLGs in the upper forums.

11
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 21, 2021, 08:36:31 PM »
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.

12
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 21, 2021, 08:17:21 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.

13
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 21, 2021, 08:03:57 PM »

If the earth wasn't rotating, then you wouldn't have the steady state line at 7.29 on the y-axis - it would be showing zero, and the seismic activity would show as vibrations above and below zero. That graph shows earth rotation perfectly. If the world is flat, and it's not rotating, then why is the RLG showing a constant rotation?

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.

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: November 08, 2019, 02:47:38 PM »
Despite numerous attempts by others this effect has never been demonstrated.

But it has.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065

Their solution(s) require a system of super-highly charged masses on the order of black holes, and the solutions only work in a simplified static case (time independent).  Not something we've ever seen ... so ,yeah, just some interesting intellectual workouts.

No black holes required at all.

All you need is a simple capacitor.

Ivanov did some real physics in his life, but his work on this was soundly rejected, especially when he proposed a static solution could provide a means of propulsion!

The Weyl-Ivanov solution cannot be rejected, it is a fact of science.

It represents the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect: then you can use supercapacitors as a form of propulsion, the formula spells this out very clearly.

Weyl was a real physicist alright, but not exactly a household name.

Weyl was the best theoretical physicists in the world, 1917-1955.

“And now I want to ask you something more: They tell me that you and Einstein are the only two real sure-enough high-brows and the only ones who can really understand each other. I won’t ask you if this is straight stuff for I know you are too modest to admit it. But I want to know this -- Do you ever run across a fellow that even you can’t understand?”

“Yes,” says he.

“This will make a great reading for the boys down at the office,” says I. “Do you mind releasing to me who he is?”

“Weyl,” says he.

(an interview that Paul Dirac gave in America back in April, 1929)

One writer's opinion piece.

Dr. Donahue's paper was peer-reviewed and it includes the actual tables which do prove his point.

There is no math in that chapter.

But there is, the author references each and every conclusion with the very best works available today, which do include the calculations.

Now, let me address the numerical calculations for the n-body problem.

All Hamiltonian systems which are not integrable are chaotic.

Since the solar system is not integrable, and experiences unpredictable small perturbations, it cannot lie permanently on a KAM torus, and is thus chaotic.

KAM theory is valid for "sufficiently" small perturbations.

In reality, the perturbations in the solar system are far too large to apply KAM theory.

So, the mathematicians have to rely on computing Lyapunov exponents, in order to try to predict any region of instability/chaos.

Jack Wisdom (MIT): It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the orbit of the Earth will suddenly exhibit similar wild excursions in eccentricity.

Even measuring initial conditions of the system to an arbitrarily high, but finite accuracy, we will not be able to describe the system dynamics "at any time in the past or future". To predict the future of a chaotic system for arbitrarily long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible.

Lyapunov exponents and symplectic integration.

Let d(t) be the distance between two solutions, with d(0) being their initial separation. Then d(t) increases approximately as d(0)eλt in a chaotic system, where λ is the Lyapunov exponent. The inverse of the Lyapunov exponent, 1/λ, is called the Lyapunov time, and measures how long it takes two nearby solutions to diverge by a factor of e.

Sussman and Wisdom's 1992 integration of the entire solar system displayed a disturbing dependence on the timestep of the integration (measurement of the Lyapunov time).

Thus, different researchers who draw their initial conditions from the same ephemeris at different times can find vastly different Lyapunov timescales.

Wayne Hayes, UC Irvine

To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.

“The word ‘chaotic’ summarizes many fundamental concepts characterizing
a dynamical system such as complex predictability and stability. But above
all, it acts as a warming of the difficulties which are likely to arise when trying to
obtain a reliable picture of its past and future evolution. As an example, a
commonly accepted definition states that a system is ‘unstable’ if the trajectories of
two points that initially are arbitrarily close . . . diverge quickly in time. This has
strong implications, as small uncertainties in initial conditions . . . might [also] be
consistent with completely different future trajectories: The conclusion is that we
can exactly reproduce the motion of a chaotic system only if WE KNOW, WITH
ABSOLUTE PRECISION, THE INITIAL CONDITIONS – A STATEMENT
THAT, IN PRACTICE, CAN NEVER BE TRUE."

Alessandra Celletti, Ettore Perozzi, Celestial Mechanics: The Waltz of the Planets

Let us take a closer look the chaotic dynamics of planetary formation; thus, a clear indication that the initial conditions cannot be predicted with accuracy (as we have seen, a mere 15 meters difference in the data will have catastrophic consequences upon the calculations).

OFFICIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION

Four stages of planetary formation

Initial stage: condensation and growth of grains in the hot nebular disk

Early stage: growth of grains to kilometer-sized planetesimals

Middle stage: agglomeration of planetesimals

Late stage: protoplanets

For the crucial stages, the initial and early stages, prediction becomes practically impossible.

As if this wasn't enough, we have absolute proof that in the age of modern man planet Earth underwent sudden pole shifts (heliocentrical version), thus making null and void any integration of the solar system/Lyapunov exponents calculations which do not take into account such variations of the system's parameters:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1635693#msg1635693

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1546053#msg1546053

Let me show you what sensitive dependence on initial conditions means, using one of the most famous examples: the Lorenz attractor butterfly effect.

In 1961, Lorenz was running a numerical computer model to redo a weather prediction from the middle of the previous run as a shortcut. He entered the initial condition 0.506 from the printout instead of entering the full precision 0.506127 value. The result was a completely different weather scenario.

Here is the set of Lorenz equations:

Now, the set of differential equations which describe the planetary orbits is much more complicated than this.

NOTHING can be said about the RE heliocentrical system beyond a time scale of 300 YEARS.

Dr. Robert W. Bass

Ph.D. (Mathematics) Johns Hopkins University, 1955 [Wintner, Hartman]
A. Wintner, world's leading authority on celestial mechanics
Post-Doctoral Fellow Princeton University, 1955-56 [under S. Lefschetz]
Rhodes Scholar
Professor, Physics & Astronomy, Brigham Young University

"In a resonant, orbitally unstable or "wild" motion, the eccentricities of one or more of the terrestrial planets can increase in a century or two until a near collision occurs. Subsequently the Principle of Least Interaction Action predicts that the planets will rapidly "relax" into a configuration very near to a (presumably orbitally stable) resonant, Bode's-Law type of configuration. Near such a configuration, small, non-gravitational effects such as tidal friction can in a few centuries accumulate effectively to a discontinuous "jump" from the actual phase-space path to a nearby, truly orbitally stable, path. Subsequently, observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false."

"I arrived independently at the preceding scenario before learning that dynamical astronomer, E. W. Brown, president of the American Astronomical Society, had already outlined the same possibility in 1931."

Dr. Robert Bass, Stability of the Solar System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf

Dr. E.W. Brown

Fellowship, Royal Society
President of the American Mathematical Society
Professor of Mathematics, Yale University
President of the American Astronomical Society

What this means is that the interval of assured reliability for Newton's equations of gravitational motion is at most three hundred years.

Dr. W.M. Smart

Regius Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University
President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1949 to 1951

Within this 300 year time interval, we again have the huge problem of the sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

15
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 08, 2019, 02:30:02 PM »
Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979

Formula:

Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation no longer coincides with its geometrical center (MGX, RLGs):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208660#msg2208660

Formula:

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: November 07, 2019, 02:24:40 PM »
The book is written by Charles Ginenthal, one of the top scholars in the world.

Basically, what Velikovsky proposed is that electrical and magnetic forces must be included in celestial mechanics.

And he was right.

Here is the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177793#msg2177793

This is the Weyl-Majumdar-Papapetrou-Ivanov solution.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

Here is how the solution was derived in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, a physicists several ranks higher than Einstein:

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

If you do not like Velikovsky, then you are going to be enthralled by Kepler, who FAKED/FUDGED the entire set of data for the Nova Astronomia:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160186#msg160186

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160200#msg160200

Here is an analysis of Jacques Laskar's numerical approach using only mainstream sources:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160189#msg160189

Chapter 3 from Newton, Einstein & Velikovsky includes the references on numerical methods, a sure sign you did not read it at all.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2875.pdf

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~wayne/research/papers/nphys728-published.pdf

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (chapter 3, Solar System Instability, pg 84 - 112, especially pg 97, 103-111) - these pages include a formidable analysis of the assumptions made by physicists who employ various kinds of numerical algorithsm to study celestial mechanics)

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: November 07, 2019, 08:56:04 AM »
One of the best accounts of the numerical methods applied to solar system stability questions:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (chapter 3, Solar System Instability, pg 84 - 112, especially pg 97, 103-111)

18
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 06, 2019, 10:16:07 PM »
You are witnessing the damage done by Albert Michelson when he claimed that the formula published in 1925 was actually describing the Sagnac effect.

To this very day, the best physicists have been unable to realize that the formula which features the area is the Coriolis effect formula.

However, in the past twenty years, for the first time, the topological considerations of the Sagnac interferometer have been taken into account.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area.

Thus, there will always be two formulas for any Sagnac interferometer.

Imagine this: the physicists at Cambridge University are confusing the Coriolis effect with the Sagnac effect, even though they describe very different physical situations.

The Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area.

Yet, Michelson, most likely intentionally, took advantage of the state of affairs in light interferometry at the beginning of the 20th century, and infused into mainstream science a huge misrepresentation.

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: November 06, 2019, 08:19:28 PM »
The three body problem is studied in the field of nonlinear ordinary differential equations with initial conditions: bifurcation theory, an exceedingly difficult branch of advanced mathematics.

Here are the known facts concerning the three body problem in the context of bifurcation theory:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160183#msg160183

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14559.msg191038#msg191038

The most intriguing is the discovery made by Professor Robert W. Bass.

Dr. Robert W. Bass

Ph.D. (Mathematics) Johns Hopkins University, 1955 [Wintner, Hartman]
A. Wintner, world's leading authority on celestial mechanics
Post-Doctoral Fellow Princeton University, 1955-56 [under S. Lefschetz]
Rhodes Scholar
Professor, Physics & Astronomy, Brigham Young University

"In a resonant, orbitally unstable or "wild" motion, the eccentricities of one or more of the terrestrial planets can increase in a century or two until a near collision occurs. Subsequently the Principle of Least Interaction Action predicts that the planets will rapidly "relax" into a configuration very near to a (presumably orbitally stable) resonant, Bode's-Law type of configuration. Near such a configuration, small, non-gravitational effects such as tidal friction can in a few centuries accumulate effectively to a discontinuous "jump" from the actual phase-space path to a nearby, truly orbitally stable, path. Subsequently, observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false."

"I arrived independently at the preceding scenario before learning that dynamical astronomer, E. W. Brown, president of the American Astronomical Society, had already outlined the same possibility in 1931."

Dr. Robert Bass, Stability of the Solar System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf

Dr. E.W. Brown

Fellowship, Royal Society
President of the American Mathematical Society
Professor of Mathematics, Yale University
President of the American Astronomical Society

What this means is that the interval of assured reliability for Newton's equations of gravitational motion is at most three hundred years.

If any proofs can be provided that the solar system underwent cataclysmic planetary collisions in recent historical times, this fact would render any kind of heliocentric orbital calculations as completely useless.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936055#msg1936055 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938384#msg1938384 (part II)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938393#msg1938393 (part III)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938396#msg1938396 (part IV)

20
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 06, 2019, 07:15:21 PM »
They only register the Coriolis effect, which is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The Coriolis effect has two possible sources: either the Earth rotates, or the ether drift rotates above the surface of the Earth.

In order to claim the rotation of the Earth, the deciding factor is the Sagnac effect, which however was never registered by Michelson and Gale, nor was it recorded by any RLG.

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

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

Markus G. Kuhn
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

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

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

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

Remember, you will ALWAYS have two formulas for any interferometer, as proven by Stokes' theorem: one is proportional to the area (Coriolis), the other one is proportional to the velocity of the light beams (Sagnac).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50  Next >