The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: TheEIR on October 12, 2019, 08:39:03 AM

Title: I have questions
Post by: TheEIR on October 12, 2019, 08:39:03 AM
My Questions:
- How does Lunar and Solar eclipse happen?
- Explain How there is a nearly 24hr day/night in some places (ex. St. Petersburg, Russia)?
- Has no one seen the south pole/Antartica from above?
- If the earth doesnt revolve around the sun, why do astronomers wait for a specific time of the year to see specific star formations?
- Explain the different layers of the earth
- Explain Horizon
IF YOU ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS WITH SENSE AND REASONABLE ANSWERS I WILL BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 12, 2019, 01:40:41 PM
My Questions:
- How does Lunar and Solar eclipse happen?
- Explain How there is a nearly 24hr day/night in some places (ex. St. Petersburg, Russia)?
- Has no one seen the south pole/Antartica from above?
- If the earth doesnt revolve around the sun, why do astronomers wait for a specific time of the year to see specific star formations?
- Explain the different layers of the earth
- Explain Horizon
IF YOU ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS WITH SENSE AND REASONABLE ANSWERS I WILL BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT

THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO BE SURE THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICALLY SHAPED :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200805#msg2200805
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201616#msg2201616
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2200711#msg2200711


Jon McIntyre - Truth Seeker says :
Hey cikljamas I've got a couple of more flat earth tests I've done that seem to show curvature. I've got four videos up now that all seem to show curvature. I came at this debate from a completely neutral perspective and in truth I actually preferred to find that the earth was flat. That's because if it was and it could be proven the whole corrupt system running the world would collapse. To my disappointment I keep finding what appears to be curvature but the  truth is that is what I'm finding. I've actually got another test in the can and will be uploading that one soon as well. It is called "The Floating Levels Test" and it shows the surface of a lake to be convex or at least it clearly appears that way. Could you please mirror my new videos and give a link back to my channel. I ask you mostly because I believe that spreading truthful inquiry and experiments is valuable. I also feel that you have shown yourself to have the character to admit you are wrong (regarding the shape of the earth) and pursue the truth just like I did. Thanks for all of your work. I'll also let you know when my latest test is uploaded. Thanks!?

OBJECT LESSON?

ONLY A FOOL NEVER CHANGES HIS MIND!!!

This is not the first time that i am offering (to everyone who is interested) this irrefutable ROUND EARTH evidence :
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78821.msg2172534#msg2172534

However, the earth is motionless and in the center of the universe :

And since it has been proven million times that aehter exists
You mean doesn't exist, including that very quote where you dishonestly leave out a key part which shows that aether can't exist.

Now you seem to have run off on a massive tangent, spamming with completely irrelevant nonsense.

Why don't we get back to the thread?
Your own quotes show that Einstein accepted the fact that Earth rotates.
As such, how did he spill the beans for something he didn't even agree with?

You should be banned for such a monumental trolling...

No marvel that Einstein spilled the beans (non-intentionally in all probability) given the following summary :

Thirring observed in his opening paragraphs that the complete equivalence between the reference frames, explaining such phenomena as the geosynchronous satellite or Foucault pendulum equally well in a geocentric reference frame, is secured by definition by Einstein's 1915 work: “the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations.”

Dr. Fred Hoyle pointed out that had the trial of Galileo been held after Einstein published his general theory, it would have resulted in an even draw by mathematical and physical necessity. This is the legacy of general relativity: the overthrow of absolute reference frames, and the democratization of all coordinate systems. Let it be clearly understood that the presentation of general relativity's teaching on the geocentric model presented herein is central, not peripheral or obscure, in Einstein's theory.

It is impossible to launch an attack on geocentricity on the basis of general relativity, by definition. Proof of a moving earth is simultaneously proof that general relativity is a myth.

In 1904 Lorentz admitted :

It need hardly be said that the present theory is put forward with all due reserve. Though it seems to me that it can account for all well-established facts, it leads to some consequences that cannot as yet be put to the test of experiment. One of these is that the result of Michelson’ s experiment must remain negative...

The experiments of which I have spoken are not the only reason for which a new examination of the problems connected with the motion of the Earth is desirable..in order to explain Michelson’ s negative result, the introduction of a new hypothesis has been required..Surely this course of inventing special hypotheses for each new experimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of certain fundamental assumptions ...

Notice that Lorentz is concerned with “problems connected with the motion of the Earth,” which tells us that the fear of being forced to accept the “unthinkable” immobile Earth was the basis upon which his ad hoc solution was determined. Reading between the lines we know that Lorentz was concerned with the fact that, if he could not come up with a convincing explanation to Michelson-Morley, he and the rest of the world would be in for a great embarrassment. Undaunted, Lorentz put the contraction theory of Fitzgerald into a mathematical formula and the equation eventually became world famous. Known as the “Lorentz Transformation,” it is still employed by many scientists today for almost any problem having to do with dismissing the possibility that Earth is motionless in space.

Eddington said:

“The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true .”

In one of his more sober moments, however, he added:

“...it was like the adventures of Gulliver in Lilliputland and Alice’s adventures in Wonderland.”

Albert Michelson didn’t buy it either. To him the Lorentz solution was artificial, mainly because the so-called contraction was independent of the elastic property
inherent in the interferometer itself, as in, for example, the resilience of a tennis ball returning to its original shape after it is struck.

He writes of Lorentz’s proposal:

Such a conclusion seems so improbable that one is inclined to return to the hypothesis of Fresnel and try to reconcile in some other way the ‘negative result’ [of the Michelson-Morley experiment].Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, New York, MacMillian Company and Cambridge University Press, 1929, pp. 33-34, emphasis his.

Martin Grusenick, an experimenter in Germany, has repeated the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment with a rather simple laser set-up and has found - to no great surprise - that rotating his apparatus horizontally, no shifts in the interference fringes are observed. Grusenick however had another idea. He modified his apparatus to make it possible to rotate in a vertical plane ... documenting his results in a video that was uploaded on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

AETHER FIELD IS THERE - THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkzMuU6jnGk

Of course, even Einstein could see through this hodgepodge of ad hoc explanations, politely calling them “asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena,” in his 1905 Annalen der Physik article. In the end, Lorentz was forced to admit: “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest, and the relative rays were the absolute rays” {ibid., p. 20). Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 120

Of his own MMX experiment, *Albert Michelson* said: “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.” (“The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)

The purpose of the Morley-Michelson experiment was to detect the motion of the lab relatively to the inertial system of the luminiferous aether, i.e. the "aether wind". SOURCE : https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/34689/what-were-the-intention-conclusions-for-michelson-morley-experiment

Here are Michelson’s own words:

“Considering the motion of the Earth in its orbit only, this displacement should be 2D v^2/V^2 = 2D × 10^-8. The distance D was about eleven meters, or 2 × 10^7 wavelengths of yellow light; hence, the displacement to be expected was 0.4 fringe. The actual displacement was certainly less than the twentieth part of this, and probably less than the fortieth part. But since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity, the relative velocity of the Earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the Earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth” (A. A. Michelson and E. W. Morley, “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” Art. xxxvi, The American Journal of Science, eds. James D and Edward S. Dana, No. 203, vol. xxxiv, November 1887, p. 341.)

So was the case for every interferometer experiment performed for the next 80 years until the 1960s – a small ether drift that was a fraction of 30km/sec. This was a conundrum for Einstein and his followers, since the Special Theory of Relativity, which was invented to answer MMX, claimed that there was NO ether at all in space – none, nada, zilch, zero. In fact, Einstein said that if there was any ether in space, then his theory is nullified.

"One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K, whereby K is treated as being at rest. - Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, "On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

I will substitute these identifications for K and K1 in italics in Einstein's text to make Einstein's position clear to every reader:

”Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe's coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth."

"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345.

As to the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the situation is rather simple: the heliocentrists assume the Earth to be in motion, and reject the zero-velocity reading of the interferometer as representing physical reality. In their view, nature conspires to hide the motion of the Earth. The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value. Those physicists who hold to various ether theories have to also teach that the ether is "entrained" at the Earth's surface to create that null result, but that means that there is a gradient in the ether between the Earth's surface and outer space — and this gradient (required by this model) simply does not exist, and has never been found. There is also a massive disproportion in this effect between the daily and annual motion of the Earth, where the greater acceleration yields the smaller apparent effect — but such discrepancies are ignored. The geocentrists, to their credit, do not ignore this evidence, they make sure these serious problems with the modern cosmologies remain center stage wherever and whenever possible. Nobody should be given a free pass on a question of this nature, nor permitted to fudge the data.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2019, 04:41:05 PM
Did you just post a quote from j*** bl*** on this forum?

Never again.

Now, let us suppose that you, or Robert Sungenis, would be asked a simple question: do you cikljamas agree that the formula published by Albert Michelson in 1925 (MGX) is the SAGNAC effect formula?

Here is the paper:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1925ApJ....61..137M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Here is the formula:

(http://image.ibb.co/kF7137/ahasag6.jpg)
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 12, 2019, 05:59:57 PM
Did you just post a quote from j*** bl*** on this forum?

Never again.

1.I've reposted my own post.
2.Are you an owner of this forum?
3.Are you a moderator on this forum?
4.Even if you were a moderator or even an owner of this forum, how could you allow yourself so condescending (shameful) behaviour towards someone who has just become new member of this society?
5.Is this how you are welcoming all new members on this forum?
6."Never again!" What did you mean by that? Is this some kind of a commandment?
7.Who is j*** bl*** (oh...you mean JackBlack???) JackBlack is a fanatic heliocentrist and a fanatic atheist. I have had many discussions (better to say : i have fought many battles against him) with him on FES in last few years. So, i am totally amazed that you confused JackBlack with me. What in the world made you think that someone like JackBlack could have ever written (even in his wildest dreams) such a blatant geocentric post???
8.Are you and Sandokhan (who writes on FES) the same persons?
9.After i receive your answers to the questions above, then we can continue our discussion...Are you O.K. with that?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2019, 06:13:37 PM
Lighten up.

Do not post quotes from that user here, or anywhere else.

Your quotes on geocentrism are fine, as usual.

Now, the heliocentrists (RE) will ask you (or Sungenis) exactly that question.

How do you answer, yes or no?

Because either way, they win hands down.

If you say yes, then it's all over: you have just accepted that the effects registered by MGX can be attributed to the SAGNAC EFFECT, just as Michelson had claimed.

If you say no, they will demand that you provide the correct equation. Can you do that?

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 12, 2019, 06:39:25 PM
Lighten up.

Do not post quotes from that user here, or anywhere else.

Your quotes on geocentrism are fine, as usual.

Now, the heliocentrists (RE) will ask you (or Sungenis) exactly that question.

How do you answer, yes or no?

Because either way, they win hands down.

If you say yes, then it's all over: you just accepted that the effects registered by MGX can be attributed to the SAGNAC EFFECT, just as Michelson had claimed.

If you say no, they will demand that you provide the correct equation. Can you do that?

---What would be the problem if i said yes?

---In all honesty, unlike dr Sungenis i am not capable of making deep analysis of that formula, in this matter i have to rely on competence of people who are much, much better mathematicians and physicists than i am.

---A few following paragraphs can illustrate how i understand true meaning and important geocentric implications of MGP and MMX :
 
---The experiment of Sagnac was repeated by Michelson and Gale in 1925, but this time taking the Earth as a rotating disk (as already suggested by Sagnac himself). These authors observed a displacement of the fringes of interferences, as had Sagnac in his own experiment. This positive result undoubtedly confirms that the Earth does not drag the hypothetical aether in its rotation (it is therefore illogical to admit that it drags this medium in its translation).

---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.

---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.


---At this point in time (the 1910s and 1920s) the world was only too happy to accept Einstein’s theories and reject anyone who challenged them. After all, Einstein was the Earth-Mover. He made the Earth move around the sun and thus saved mankind from having to admit that popular science had misled the world for the 500 years prior.

---For the geocentrist, the only thing left to answer is: from whence did the one-sixth of ether originate? The simple answer is that since the universe, with its ether, is rotating around a fixed Earth, some of that ether spilled into Michelson’s 1887 interferometer when he was trying to detect if the Earth was moving around the sun. This is confirmed by the fact that Michelson did another experiment in 1925 in order to measure the ether movement for the daily rotation between space and Earth. In that experiment he found six-sixths of the required ether for a daily rotation. Hence it is logical to assume that the one-sixth he found in 1887 came from the same ether he later detected in his 1925 experiment.

---Noted physicist Charles Lane Poor of Columbia University reiterated the problem:

“The Michelson-Morley experiment forms the basis of the relativity theory: Einstein calls it decisive...if it should develop that there is a measurable ether-drift, then the entire fabric of the relativity theory would collapse like a house of cards.”

So Einstein was banking on the hope that since Michelson did not detect the required amount of ether for an Earth moving around the sun, he could conclude that the ether simply didn’t exist. Hence, the detection of one-sixth of the required ether was thus conveniently chalked up to “experimental error.” 

The facts show otherwise, however. Every interferometer experiment performed from Michelson in 1881 to Joos in 1930—which is 50 years of the same results from a dozen different experimenters—detected one-sixth to one-tenth.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2019, 06:52:00 PM
In his classic treatise, Galileo Was Wrong, R. Sungenis devoted some pages to the MGX. Just like you he tried the following argument:

These authors observed a displacement of the fringes of interferences, as had Sagnac in his own experiment. This positive result undoubtedly confirms that the Earth does not drag the hypothetical aether in its rotation (it is therefore illogical to admit that it drags this medium in its translation).

You still don't get it.

Once you ACCEPT that Michelson recorded the SAGNAC EFFECT, you also accept that the Earth is rotating around its own axis as well.

Do not forget the Lorentz ether theory: the ether travels merrily along with the Earth around the Sun.

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.

Now, if you somehow realize that Michelson pulled a fast one on the rest of the scientific community, and no longer agree that the formula published is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, the RE will answer back: show us the correct formula then.

If you cannot, they win again.

Now you understand why Michelson was given $17,000 (a fortune at that time) to carry out the experiment in Clearing, Illinois.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 12, 2019, 07:32:11 PM

Most scientists accepted relativity joyfully. By abandoning physical reasoning, and accepting pure mathematical formalism, it gave them a plausible excuse to ignore all the evidence that the earth is stationary. Part of their acceptance required rejecting the existence of the  aether. But a French scientist called Sagnac seemed  unconvinced. No one had ever proved that the earth was actually moving, and Relativity was based on the assumption that it must be moving. In fact Relativity is  largely an ad hoc to explain away the observations that show the earth to be stationary at the centre of the universe (Einstein's denial notwithstanding!).

Sagnac built a turn-table with mirrors on it arranged in such a way that a beam of light was split into two beams, one was reflected from mirror to mirror anticlockwise  around the turntable, the other was reflected around clockwise.  After a complete circuit the beams were recombined in a camera to give interference fringes.  Looking at it in a very simplified way, when the turntable was set spinning there was known to be movement, the beam going round with the turn table's rotation would be  chasing the camera  (which is moving away at  speed v) with a relative speed of c-v, whereas the beam going against the rotation would approach the camera "head on" with a  relative  speed  of c +v.  If the basic assumptions of Relativity were correct, with c + v = c-v, and no aether, then there should be no fringe shift.

But there was a fringe shift. A basic assumption of Relativity was apparently wrong. More explanations were needed to keep Relativity and the motion of the earth  alive. But the excuses of the relativists were tested, experimentally and theoretically, and found to be invalid. Eventually the famous physicist Herbert Ives pointed  out that the only way to carry on believing in Relativity was to "avoid looking at the  evidence." Arguments are still being put forward to explain away Sagnac's  experiment. Interestingly enough there are a number of explanations  of such problems for Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" (STR) which appeal to his "General  Theory  of Relativity" (GTR).

Now STR cannot have an aether and must have a constant velocity of light. On the other hand GTR is, as Einstein put it "unthinkable without the aether" and cannot tolerate a constant velocity of light. The two theories are mutually exclusive. At least one must be wrong. To solve difficulties for one by calling in the other is  clearly  invalid.

Michelson, together with a new collaborator called Gale, thought of a way to test whether the aether exists or not. They built a tunnel of pipe sections at Chicago.  The tunnel was in the form of a large rectangle. They reasoned that if there were an aether, then the rotation of the earth from west to east through it should cause  a beam of light travelling clockwise round the tunnel to take slightly less time to get round than a beam travelling anticlockwise. If there were no aether then both  beams would take the same time. the  earth's  rotation. The same result would be observed if the earth were rotating and the aether were standing still, or if the  earth were standing still with the universe, including the  aether rotating around it, or if the earth were partially rotating and the aether were partially rotating.

They measured a difference. Existence  of aether established.

The author of the words above is Marshal Hall, if i remember well, he is a geocentrist, however he made the same mistake as JackBlack did (pay attention to the words in red)...

Now, this is going to be interesting (how i responded to one of infamous JackBlack's stupid lies) :

---The only acceptable conclusion that can be drawn from these two experiments, Michelson–Morley, on the one hand, and Michelson–Gale, on the other hand, is that the hypothesis of the existence of a medium of propagation for light is not tenable, unless we accept geocentric implications from the combined effect of both experiments (MM and MGP). In the classical context, it is clear that the Sagnac effect cannot at all be explained, unless we admit that the earth is at rest while the whole universe rotates around the stationary earth.
Completely wrong.
Firstly, it wouldn't matter if Earth was rotating with the aether at rest, Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth, or both rotating around the axis of Earth. All three would produce the same result.

But more importantly, that ignores stellar aberration, which makes sense in the context of Earth having a speed of roughly 30 km/s.
The detection of stellar aberration combined with the MM experiment refutes the aether model entirely.

1. Let's consider hypotesis No 1 : "If Earth was rotating with the aether at rest" :

If we assumed that the earth is rotating with the aether at rest then we would have to deal with totally different kind of problem :
Instead of being unable to detect earth's orbital motion (Joos' upper limit = 1,54 km/s), and being able (by Michelson, Gale and Pearson) to establish (and confirm (by others) with different methods (see above)) an exact daily rotational velocity of an aether (even exactly matching expected speeds for a given latitudes), in such hypothetical situation (HC scenario) we would have to face quite an opposite difficulty : since the orbital velocity of the earth is almost 100 times greater than the earth's alleged rotational velocity at 40° N latitude, MGP kind of an experiments would yield much higher results (than expected), and MM kind of an experiments would regularly register exactly 108 000 km of earth's orbital velocity. 

2. Let's consider hypotesis No 2 : "Earth was at rest with the aether rotating around Earth" :

This is perfectly in accordance with reality : no orbital motion of the earth, no rotational motion of the earth, and an aether rotates around the motionless earth once per day.

3. Let's consider hypotesis No 3 : "or both rotating around the axis of Earth" :

This is utter nonsense, and here is why :

A) Aether rotates in the same direction of earths rotation twice faster than the earth : This would be the only way how someone could   
measure 363 m/s for the rotational speed of aether (around rotational earth) at 40°N.

PROBLEM : Wrong direction of aether's rotation. (atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster westward, but eastward)

B) Aether rotates with the same speed of the earth in the same direction of earth's rotation.

PROBLEM : Atmospheric charges wouldn't flow faster neither westward nor eastward.

C) Aether rotates in an opposite direction of earth's rotation (at any speed).

PROBLEM : We would measure rotational speed of a rotating aether which would exceed earth's rotational speed.

ON TOP OF THAT : All three solutions (A,B,C) would be of a minor significance (if any significance at all) since we wouldn't be able to measure rotational speed of an aether around the rotating earth since the speed of aether flow due to orbital motion of the earth would be much (100 times) higher than the speed of an aether due to rotational motion of the earth (see No 1, above).

ACCOMPANYING POST : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78424.msg2126528#msg2126528
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2019, 07:45:23 PM
Did you just post that quote from that user? Again?

You see, Georges Sagnac did not record the SAGNAC EFFECT.

He registered the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Michelson and Gale measured a difference, YES.

I ask you: which is it? Is it the SAGNAC EFFECT? If you answer yes, you lose. If you answer no, the RE will demand to see the correct formula.

You did not expand correctly on hypothesis #1.

The Lorentz ether theory takes care of all problems for relativists: the ether is TRANSLATIONAL, and the Sun also has a TRANSLATIONAL ETHER FIELD around it, which takes care of the orbital Sagnac effect.

Hypothesis #1 is very real for the relativists: the Earth is rotating and you have the ether too.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 12, 2019, 08:15:30 PM
When we send electromagnetic signal towards east it takes extra time to reach certain destination wrt sent signal in counter direction (westward).
The amount of this lagging is the difference between the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic waves) and the speed of aether's rotation around stationary earth.
Doesn't that demonstrate that Michelson and Gale didn't measure Coriolis effect, but Sagnac effect???
"Sagnac effect" in common use designates the difference between the speed of light and the speed of aether's rotation (portrayed in official science as the rotation of the earth).
Hypothesis No 1, could yield the same effect as the rotation of aether around the stationary earth, only if the earth wasn't orbiting the sun, and since in HC model you can't have earth's rotation without earth's orbital motion then you would have "a different (opposite) problem," just as i have explained above.
Opposite in a sense that in that hypothetical case (if HC model were true description of our reality, which it is not) when conducting MM type of an experiment we would be able to measure earth's orbital speed of exactly 30 km/s, however when performing MGP type of an experiment we would have problems with correct measuring because aether's wind due to the orbital motion would overcome aether's wind due to the earth's rotation and so produces serious disturbances in measuring the speed of earth's rotation.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2019, 08:27:57 PM
The amount of this lagging is the difference between the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic waves) and the speed of aether's rotation around stationary earth.

Sure.

What formula did you use?

Perhaps the one published by Michelson and used by all of the ring laser gyroscopes?

That formula measures the AREA, not the difference in VELOCITY.

You need THE ACTUAL FORMULA.

But you don't have it.

Doesn't that demonstrate that Michelson and Gale didn't measure Coriolis effect, but Sagnac effect???

The RE will simply respond: show us the formula.

Hypothesis No 1, could yield the same effect as the rotation of aether around the stationary earth, only if the earth wasn't orbiting the sun, and since in HC model you can't have earth's rotation without earth's orbital motion then you would have "a different (opposite) problem," just as i have explained above.
Opposite in a sense that in that hypothetical case (if HC model were true description of our reality, which it is not) when conducting MM type of an experiment we would be able to measure earth's orbital speed of exactly 30 km/s, however when performing MGP type of an experiment we would have problems with correct measuring because aether's wind due to the orbital motion would overcome aether's wind due to the earth's rotation and so produces serious disturbances in measuring the speed of earth's rotation.


The MGX was not meant to measure the ORBITAL SAGNAC, just the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

Again, the Lorentz ether model permits you to have full heliocentrism and also enjoy the benefits of an ether envelope around the rotating earth.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 12, 2019, 08:56:21 PM
Sandokhan, i told you several times : Earth is not flat, i don't know why you insist that it is?
Insisting that the earth is flat is dancing on HC notes... Ask yourself : Cui bono?

This is a message that i sent a while ago to my dear (former, former on his request) friend My Perspective below one of his not so old videos :

The earth is not flat, and i can easily prove it. But the question is this : can you make one important step forward? What lays one step ahead of you? Geocentric truth (the earth is stationary) and one other very important revelation : Flat Earth is a psyop, it really is a psyop, very dangerous one. Do you know why? Because they use it to compromise geocentric truth! Always use this rule : CUI BONO (to whom is it a benefit?)???  Whenever someone mentions that there is no proof in favor of HC theory what happens instantly??? That someone is immediately dismissed as a lunatic a.k.a. labeled as a FLAT EARTHER. It is not easy to get out of a flat earth shell (i've been through it all), but it is necessary to make that step because we can't allow ourselves to be deliberate liars (once that we figure out our serious FE blunder) alike HC - NASA shills. I mean, do you really want to stay in your flat earth shell, just because you can't find enough strength to do what it has to be done for your (and our mutual) own good??? Don't you realize that remaining a flat earther is nothing else but accepting their rules a.k.a. playing according to their notes a.k.a. being their puppet (consciously or unconsciously)??? Now, are you prepared to encounter the truth about the shape of the earth? If you are not i won't blame you, you will always be my friend even if you believed in unicorn because i am sure you are absolutely honest person. If your answer is : yes, i am ready to see your set of round earth proofs, then i will provide it for you in one single and not very long post. May God's bless be with all of you!!!

Claiming that MGP experiment measured coriolis effect, not sagnac effect, you are making another serious mistake which sets back your own interests, as well (assuming that motionless earth is your interest)...
MGP experiment (correctly interpreted) in combination with MM experiment makes deadly combination for HC camp, so i ask myself : why are you trying to undermine geocentric position by claiming that MGP experiment measured coriolis effect, not sagnac effect???
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2019, 09:14:46 PM
We are not discussing the shape of the Earth here at all.

Just geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

Claiming that MGP experiment measured coriolis effect

If you have a formula which features the area of the interferometer then you have the Coriolis effect formula.

If you want the velocity, you need the Sagnac effect formula.

MGP experiment (correctly interpreted) in combination with MM experiment makes deadly combination for HC camp

But it doesn't! Not if you agree that the MGX measured the Sagnac effect.

The RE are laughing all the way to the bank with the MGX.

They will ask you: did the MGX measure the SAGNAC EFFECT?

Since you are going to answer yes, they win.

Sagnac = rotation.

If you say no, they will require of you the correct formula.

Can you understand? If you agree with the RE that the MGX formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation, then you have just agreed that the MGX measured Earth's rotation.

But if the MGX measured only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then you have a chance to win by providing the CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2019, 09:18:54 PM
If you want to measure the ORBITAL SAGNAC or CORIOLIS, then you'd need a 40 km interferometer, a larger scale MGX.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 13, 2019, 02:00:09 PM
If you want to measure the ORBITAL SAGNAC or CORIOLIS, then you'd need a 40 km interferometer, a larger scale MGX.
Why would you need a 40 km interferometer?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 13, 2019, 02:04:48 PM
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdf

This is from 1904, way before Sagnac; Michelson derives the Coriolis formula, proportional to the area of the interferometer. The 40 km figure derivation is included.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 13, 2019, 02:41:25 PM
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdf

This is from 1904, way before Sagnac; Michelson derives the Coriolis formula, proportional to the area of the interferometer. The 40 km figure derivation is included.

We all know that Sagnac effect (lagging of electromagnetic waves sent in eastward direction) is real phenomena, do we really need anything else to be sure that aether rotates around motionless earth?
On the other hand if the earth and it's atmosphere rotates towards east how come that airplanes take longer to fly west, not east (as it is the case with electromagnetic waves)?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 13, 2019, 02:53:36 PM
The Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer.

In 1999 E. J. Post showed the equivalence between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac experiment.

E. J. Post, A joint description of the Michelson Morley and Sagnac experiments.
Proceedings of the International Conference Galileo Back in Italy II, Bologna 1999,
Andromeda, Bologna 2000, p. 62

E. J. Post is the only person to notice the substantial identity  between the 1925 experiment and that of 1887: "To avoid possible confusion, it may be  remarked that the beam path in the more well-known Michelson-Morley interferometer, which was mounted on a turntable, does not enclose a finite surface area; therefore no fringe shift can be expected as a result of a uniform rotation of the latter".

E. J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics. Vol. 39, n. 2, April 1967

Dr. Patrick Cornille (Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pg. 141):

(http://image.ibb.co/eHyoUn/mmo.jpg)

Upon learning that their 1881 and 1887 experiments did not include the expected fringe shifts, Michelson and Morley planned what later became the Michelson-Gale experiment to concentrate on the hypothesized diurnal rotation aspect of Earth's heliocentric orbit.

They sought to link the SAGNAC EFFECT with an experiment purported to be a proof of Earth's rotation, later these experiments used ring laser gyroscopes.

We all know that Sagnac effect (lagging of electromagnetic waves sent in eastward direction) is real phenomena, do we really need anything else to be sure that aether rotates around motionless earth?

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect on the light beams, their trajectories will be slightly offset.

The Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect on the velocities of the light beams.

Any interferometer has to record BOTH PHENOMENA, as proven by Stokes' theorem.

Please state what formula you used for the eastward direction lagging effect.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 13, 2019, 03:57:25 PM
Sagnac effect :
--Aether rotates towards west
--Electromagnetic waves sent towards west lag wrt those sent towards east
--So, electromagnetic waves sent in counter-direction of aether's rotation (eastward) need less time to cross the same distance wrt those sent in the same direction of aether's rotation (westward).

Coriolis effect :
--Earth and it's atmosphere allegedly rotate towards east
--Airplanes lag when fly west
--So, airplanes that fly in counter-direction of earth's alleged rotation need more time to cross the same distance wrt airplanes that fly in the same direction of earth's alleged rotation

This difference can illustrate (to a certain extent) why i think that your claim that Coriolis effect can affect electromagnetic waves, has no foundation in reality. I remember how Fizeau's experiment demonstrated that circulating water can impede light beams, but i have never heard of an experiment which indicated that Coriolis effect can affect the speed of electromagnetic waves...
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 13, 2019, 04:12:46 PM
I have just stated that the CORIOLIS EFFECT modifies the PATH of the light beams, a physical effect. The speed of the light beams is modified by the SAGNAC EFFECT.

You did not answer the question: what equation did you use to record the lagging of the electromagnetic waves?

Perhaps this will be of help:

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/39778/InTech-Gps_and_the_one_way_speed_of_light.pdf
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 13, 2019, 06:49:52 PM
I've read first two pages, and i noticed that an author of this article made pretty giant leap from

The first experiment among these that  was  taken  as  indicating  light  speed  constancy  is  the  celebrated  Michelson-Morley  experiment  of  1887  that  searched  for  ether  drift  based  on  interferometer  fringe  shifts.  This  experiment  involved  interfering  light  beams  that  traversed  orthogonal  paths  on  a  movable  apparatus.  It  was  designed  to  reveal  the  speed  of  the  Earth’s  orbital  motion  through  the  hypothesized  ether  using  the  expected  change  in  light  speed  arising  from  movement  with  or  against  the  associated  ether  wind. (first paragraph - first page) ... to

As a result of these many negative tests the almost universal belief among physicists is that the  postulate  of  light  speed  constancy  has  been  confirmed. (second paragraph - second page) ...

So, it seems that an author of that article tries to convey to us that Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to reveal the speed of the Earth's orbital motion, and subsequent similar experiments were designed to determine if the speed of light is constant or not...

Where is the aether in all of this???

Can you give me an answer to that question before i manage to read the whole article?

I didn't use any equation, i just took it (sagnac effect) for granted...I think i can allow myself such a comfort (relaxation) in this particular case...

Btw, have you noticed how the truth (my thread "If you can beat him, ban him") is unbearable even for the moderator on this forum, as well...What a shame...Absolute, utter shame!!!
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 13, 2019, 07:23:01 PM
Had you read the paper you would have discovered an amazing fact: the author derives a formula which features the area, but then, in order to find the lag of the electromagnetic waves, he switches over to the equivalent formula which is proportional to the velocity.

What, then, is the equivalent formula for the MGX which must include the lag of the velocities of the light beams?

For the MGX we have two velocities, one for each latitude.



Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 13, 2019, 08:01:14 PM
1. Sagnac effect is a real phenomena.
2. Heliocentrists and relativists have to answer this question : If there is no aether what mechanics can explain Sagnac effect? Coriolis force? Of course not...
3. The amount of lagging of electromagnetic waves is consistent with the speed of aether's motion (a.k.a. alleged earth's rotation) for each latitude on the earth. So, either aether rotates around the earth or the earth rotates within motionless aether. In both cases aether exists.
4. Since aether obviously exists why we can't measure orbital motion of the earth? Because there is no orbital motion. But heliocentrists can't have rotation without orbital motion.

5. Now, look how author of that article interprets the result of MM experiment :

It  was  designed  to  reveal  the  speed  of  the  Earth’s  orbital  motion  through  the  hypothesized  ether  using  the  expected  change  in  light  speed  arising  from  movement  with  or  against  the  associated  ether  wind.  The  observed  fringe  shift  was  significantly less than what was expected as a result of the revolving Earth.


Utter bullshit!

6. So, once again for everyone :

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX), but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

Michelson didn't say they saw no evidence of shift. He said it was "probably" less than 16% of what would be expected from Earth's alleged orbital motion. That's not the same as saying there's no evidence of shift, or that the measured shift was within the margin of instrumental error. In fact, he did see a shift...

Even though this did not disprove the existence of the ether, *this was an extremely important discovery.* The commonly-accepted theories about how light propagates would not be valid if the Earth were moving through the ether at 5 km/s, so science was facing a kind of crisis because of this news.

The theories of the time proposed that light traveled through the ether, which the Earth moved through at 30 km/s. This theory came about after Maxwell summarized the equations of electromagnetism in 1860. Up to this point, the established laws of physics were invariant under Galilean transformations: the simple picture where, if you're in a car at 60mph and someone's driving toward you at 60mph, you can say from your frame of reference that he is coming toward you at 120mph. That is, in a nutshell, classical relativity. Newton's laws of motion work equally well in any non-accelerating reference frame, and so are invariant under a Galilean transformation. That is, you can add a certain velocity to all object in a kinematics problem or move it fifteen miles to the left, and the math will work out the same for you.

It was found that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation. It also predicted electromagnetic waves that travelled at speed c, and since this number was close to the speed at which light had been measured, this was seen as likely confirmation that light was an electromagnetic wave. It was at this point that the “ether theory” made a comeback. According to this theory, the ether would be the “rest frame” from which the speed of light is measured at c. Michelson and Morley were trying to prove the existence of this ether by calculating the difference in the speed of light in different directions, and they failed.

 If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 13, 2019, 08:33:22 PM
The ether is no longer a problem for relativists. Practically they are forced to accept its existence, given the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac, nor the solar gravitational potential effect.

So we are back to the MGX. Michelson claimed he measured the SAGNAC EFFECT. Then, it's all over for the geocentrists.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 14, 2019, 01:45:18 PM
Michelson Gale : http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Michelson_Gale_1925/Michelson_Gale_1925.pdf
Michelson-Gale Experiment explained :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDYsnrSqvrQ
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 14, 2019, 02:01:19 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.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 15, 2019, 12:37:23 AM
Michelson-Gale is an inconsistent experiment which showed that the Earth started and stopped its rotation at different times the test was conducted, and was only argued to show the Earth's rotation based on a certain selected groupings and statistical basis.

From The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments (http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/AToS/AS3-I.2.pdf) by Dr. Paulo N. Correa:

  “ The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes, the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation, but the result was of borderline significance. It could be said that the experiment was inconclusive because it adduced neither proof that there was a shift in the phase of the light beams, nor that there wasn't one. ”
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 05:29:01 AM
This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:

(https://i.ibb.co/D88Br8N/mgx.jpg)

The RE will state that it is a normally distributed experiment, no problem.

And ring laser gyroscopes suffer from no such deficiencies.

the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation,

Exactly.

Now, can everyone here understand the huge significance of Michelson's magical substitution? He claimed that his formula describes the SAGNAC EFFECT: pure rotation.

That is why both the FE and GE are helpless when it comes to debating the MGX.

Unless they can provide the correct SAGNAC formula, it is all over right from the start.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 15, 2019, 05:44:53 AM
That RE statement would be wrong.

A rotating earth should give consistent results, not stop, slow down, or speed up when tested at different times. The fact is, in order to explain those results now you have to bring in a mysterious second mechanism which is modifying the results. A mysterious secondary mechanism which is NOT the rotation of the earth is present in the experiment.

This invalidates all results. As you see, since the inconsitency shows that other effects are present, those other effects could also be related to the revolution of one rotation or oscillation per 24 hours, whether it be heat or seismic related, or related to some other phenomena. Since we don't know what it is, and we know for a certainty that the experiment is tainted, the experiment is hardly a proof of anything at all. This tainted experiment and all inferences must therefore be thrown out like the trash it is. Inconsistent experiments are always thrown out in emperical science. Not sometimes, always. Inconsistency is evidence that interference and variables have not been properly eliminated and you are not actually testing what you expect to be testing.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 06:02:45 AM
RLGs suffer from no such deficiencies.

The RE will simply brush away your statements (valid as they are) and ask: do you agree that the formula published by Michelson describes the Sagnac effect?

Will you answer yes?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 15, 2019, 06:07:17 AM
RLGs suffer from no such deficiencies.

The RE will simply brush away your statements (valid as they are) and ask: do you agree that the formula published by Michelson describes the Sagnac effect?

Will you answer yes?

Have you seen the raw results from the RLG to make that assertion?

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/911373.pdf --page 51 - 54 shows that the RLG results are inconsistent. A graph on p.54 shows that the results are adopted to a "best fit" algorithm. RLG is not really an experiment, and more like a consumer device. The analogous experiment is Michelson-Gale, which was miniaturized over time.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 06:15:59 AM
The RE will simply dismiss the statistics, which is actually in their favor.

They will ask you, yet again: do you agree that the formula published by Michelson describes the SAGNAC EFFECT?

Here is the formula published by Michelson:

(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)

If you say yes, then the debate is over, you have just agreed that the MGX/RLGs registered ROTATION.

If you answer no, then they will require the correct formula.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 15, 2019, 07:57:23 AM
In order to believe the RE interpretation for this, the earth is rotating and giving consistent results. There is another mysterious secondary mechanism modifying those results to a range between where the earth is stopped and where it is rotating at twice it's speed. Due to the range seen, this secondary mechanism is ALSO somehow related to the speed of the Earth's rotation. A secondary mechanism is stopping and then speeding up the earth by 2x and ranges inbetween. How likely is that?

Now that we have introduced mysterious mechanisms (roll eyes) related to the diurnal day anything is possible. Alternatively, we may interpret this as ONE mechanism which is creating that range of results, and which is related to the diurnal period of the sun, tides, or celestial bodies over the earth, whether it is seismic, heat, or 'aether' related. We know by the direct evidence of inconsistency that the results are modifiable by a mechanism which is not the rotation of the earth. If it is modifiable then it is also entirely createable.

This is most certainly not an irrefragable proof of Earth's rotation if mysterious mechanisms centered around the period of a diurnal day are required to keep your theory of a rotating earth alive. Once you require mysterious mechanisms in your experiment to explain the results to be coherent with your belief system, your experiment is now open to many interpretations. So many interpretations that the results become invalid.

Really, inconsistency ends the discussion. Confidence and certainty is required in emperical investigation, which inconsistency does not give. Anyone insisting on a particular interpretation of an inconsistent experiment is brandishing a sword of jelly.

But it is all they have, so we should not be surprised if they insist on fallacy and mental gymnastics as they do with so much else. It doesn't matter if they insist on 'possibilities'. The criticism shows that it is not the irrefutable evidence that is necessary to end this debate.

As far as whether the right equations are even being used, that is of less importance to me, but I doubt it. It looks a bit different than the sagnac formula at a glance, and it would not be surprising if some of the fundamentals were changed to come up with a statistical basis better to their liking, dishonest manipulators of science that they are.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 08:27:21 AM
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:

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)

Sagnac's interferometer proves ROTATION.

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.

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.

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)

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.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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:

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)

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.

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)

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.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 11:52:52 AM
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.

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.


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.

Completely wrong.

Hasselbach and Nicklaus and Werner measured the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift upon the electrons/neutrons.

What S.A. Werner measured in 1979 is the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the neutron phase:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.00259.pdf

Once the area of the interferometer is mentioned you get the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 01:48:02 PM
Let me now PROVE that, for an interferometer whose center of rotation does not coincide with its geometrical center, one will record BOTH the Sagnac and the Coriolis effects.

LISA Space Antenna

(https://image.ibb.co/ivHjjS/lisa2.jpg)

The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

If the interferometer would not be rotating around its axis, but only would be orbiting the Sun, it will be subjected to BOTH the Coriolis effect of rotation and the orbital Sagnac effect.

For an interferometer which has regular geometry (square, rectangle, equilateral triangle) the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect coincide and are equal; for the first case, the interferometer can be stationary (not rotating around its own axis) while for the second case, the interferometer must be rotating.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

(https://image.ibb.co/iSbPJn/lis1.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


The same phenomenon is at work for the MGX and RLGs.

One has an interferometer which is rotating on the surface of a sphere: it will be subjected to both the Coriolis effect and to the Sagnac effect.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: TomInAustin on October 15, 2019, 02:47:12 PM
The ether is no longer a problem for relativists. Practically they are forced to accept its existence, given the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac, nor the solar gravitational potential effect.

So we are back to the MGX. Michelson claimed he measured the SAGNAC EFFECT. Then, it's all over for the geocentrists.

Wait, what?  Are you admitting that GPS satellites exist?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 02:48:23 PM
You are the only person in the world who claims this.

My previous message proved that EVERYONE at ESA and NASA knows and accepts the fact that for the LISA Space Antenna, the interferometer will record BOTH the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect.

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


The same phenomenon is at work for the MGX and RLGs.

One has an interferometer which is rotating on the surface of a sphere: it will be subjected to both the Coriolis effect and to the Sagnac effect.


You still do not seem to understand what is going on.

Nobody is contending the existence of ether. The relativists have begun to fully accept this fact; they have to, since the GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect.

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?


Here is a second proof, using Stokes' theorem:

(https://i.ibb.co/GW6FXrn/corsag5.jpg)

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

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

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

In the case where the interferometer will be located away from the center of rotation (MGX/RLGs), there will be a factor of proportionality: R/L, where R = radius of the Earth.

(https://i.ibb.co/Byy1jQn/corsag4.jpg)

This factor of proportionality was proven, for the first time, for the LISA Space Antenna, as shown above.

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)


Thus we can see the huge discrepancy between the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula and the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for the MGX/RLGs (Michelson-Gale experiment/Ring Laser Gyroscopes).

There is NO velocity term for the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula: 4Aω/c2.

Therefore, if the interferometer itself is being rotated, and the RADIUS of rotation is R, then the SAGNAC EFFECT will be proportional to the velocity, V = R x ω.


A = L x l (long side multiplied by the short side)

Then, 4Aω = 4Vωl, where Vω = L x ω.

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is equivalent to a SAGNAC EFFECT formula where the RADIUS of rotation now becomes L.

Since the RADIUS of rotation in the MGX/RLGs is actually the radius of the Earth, it becomes obvious that the SAGNAC EFFECT formula will be greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula by at least a factor of R/l (interferometer in the shape of a rectangle), exactly the term found by CalTech and ESA for the LISA Space Antenna.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: TomInAustin on October 15, 2019, 02:59:59 PM
You are the only person in the world who claims this.

My previous message proved that EVERYONE at ESA and NASA knows and accepts the fact that for the LISA Space Antenna, the interferometer will record BOTH the Coriolis effect and the Sagnac effect.

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


The same phenomenon is at work for the MGX and RLGs.

One has an interferometer which is rotating on the surface of a sphere: it will be subjected to both the Coriolis effect and to the Sagnac effect.


You still do not seem to understand what is going on.

Nobody is contending the existence of ether. The relativists have begun to fully accept this fact; they have to, since the GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect.

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?


Here is a second proof, using Stokes' theorem:

(https://i.ibb.co/GW6FXrn/corsag5.jpg)

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

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

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

In the case where the interferometer will be located away from the center of rotation (MGX/RLGs), there will be a factor of proportionality: R/L, where R = radius of the Earth.

(https://i.ibb.co/Byy1jQn/corsag4.jpg)

This factor of proportionality was proven, for the first time, for the LISA Space Antenna, as shown above.

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)


Thus we can see the huge discrepancy between the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula and the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for the MGX/RLGs (Michelson-Gale experiment/Ring Laser Gyroscopes).

There is NO velocity term for the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula: 4Aω/c2.

Therefore, if the interferometer itself is being rotated, and the RADIUS of rotation is R, then the SAGNAC EFFECT will be proportional to the velocity, V = R x ω.


A = L x l (long side multiplied by the short side)

Then, 4Aω = 4Vωl, where Vω = L x ω.

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is equivalent to a SAGNAC EFFECT formula where the RADIUS of rotation now becomes L.

Since the RADIUS of rotation in the MGX/RLGs is actually the radius of the Earth, it becomes obvious that the SAGNAC EFFECT formula will be greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula by at least a factor of R/l (interferometer in the shape of a rectangle), exactly the term found by CalTech and ESA for the LISA Space Antenna.

I am confused.  Youa re a flat earther but you mention satliltes as proof of your theorys?  The LISA Space Antenna operates outside of Earth's sphere of influence.  If you accept that you have to accept that the earth is not flat.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 03:11:57 PM
The LISA Space Antenna operates outside of Earth's sphere of influence.

The LISA Space Antenna is supposed to operate outside of Earth's sphere of influence.

I have just stated that fact on page 2 of this thread.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

GPS satellites orbit at a much lower altitude using the Biefeld-Brown effect.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: TomInAustin on October 15, 2019, 03:17:51 PM
The LISA Space Antenna operates outside of Earth's sphere of influence.

The LISA Space Antenna is supposed to operate outside of Earth's sphere of influence.


So it either does or it doesn't, which is it?

If it does it proves round earth, if it doesn't you can't use its findings as evidence.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 03:46:01 PM
You haven't done your homework on the subject.

ESA claims that the LISA Pathfinder mission was in orbit (2015-2017).

Why didn't the LISA Pathfinder satellite register/record the orbital and the galactic Sagnac effects?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: TomInAustin on October 15, 2019, 03:52:26 PM
You haven't done your homework on the subject.
ESA claims that the LISA Pathfinder mission was in orbit (2015-2017).

Stop trying to deflect. 

Does it exist or not? 

[ ] Yes
[ ] No


Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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...
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
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.


For light beams, the effect is readily and immediately measurable.

Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:


https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

The final formula is this:

dt = 4ωA/c2


The SAGNAC EFFECT, by contrast, does not feature an AREA at all.

(https://image.ibb.co/cPs5vd/sagnac3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m86n8y/sagnac4.jpg)

NO ENCLOSED AREA APPEARS IN THIS EXPRESSION.


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.

What formula did you use for the correction?

This one?

dt = 4ωA/c2

That is the Coriolis effect formula.

None other than Neil Ashby, the high priest of relativity theory applied to GPS satellites agrees.

In a rare admission, even N. Ashby states that the Coriolis force is responsible for the term commonly used in GPS technology for the Sagnac effect:

(https://image.ibb.co/geRwSo/kel11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fkfHYT/kel10.jpg)


We have to ask this question : Had coriolis force had any effect on MGPX what kind of effect would have it been?

I already answered that question from the very start: the effect is physical, a slight deflection of the light beam, which still will reach the target, the deflection is in the middle of the trajectory.

Here is the diagram drawn by Dr. Ludwik Silberstein:

(https://image.ibb.co/bZAaCy/mgrot4.jpg)
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 15, 2019, 06:23:52 PM
Quote
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.

Lets assume that the Michelson-Gale equation is correct or that the formula is analogous to a Sagnac equation:

How can this Sagnac Effect from the device prove rotation of earth's surface when we know that there are other variables which are not caused by the rotation of the earth that can cause the results to change drastically?

We saw from the inconsistency that the rotation of the earth in the Michelson-Gale is dominated by another effect which is not the rotation of the earth. This proves that the Sagnac Effect doesn't necessarily measure rotation of the earth. If it detects something then we can say that it might or might not be rotation of the surface. Whether it is the Sagnac formula or not, and despite nitpicking of formulas, the inconsistency and dominance of other effects in the experiment shows that the mechanism and associated formula is not reliable to prove rotation.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2019, 08:52:23 PM
How can this Sagnac Effect from the device prove rotation of earth's surface when we know that there are other variables which are not caused by the rotation of the earth that can cause the results to change drastically?

We saw from the inconsistency that the rotation of the earth in the Michelson-Gale is dominated by another effect which is not the rotation of the earth. This proves that the Sagnac Effect doesn't necessarily measure rotation of the earth.


You are not describing the Sagnac effect, but the Coriolis effect.

The inconsistency is due to the fact that the ether drift is latitude dependent and sinusoidal in nature.

(http://www.orgonelab.org/graphics/MILLER/MillerDataGraph.jpg)

However, the statistics work in the RE's favor:

(https://i.ibb.co/D88Br8N/mgx.jpg)

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

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)

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 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.

As for the RLGs,  both terrestrial and those used in airplanes, using seismic waves and/or Earth's line fluctuations: these can be readily explained by the RE.

The same formula is used for RLGs: since the RE say that this formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation, they now have proven ROTATION as well.

You can only counteract these claims with the TRUE Sagnac formula itself.



Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 16, 2019, 10:45:32 AM
However, the statistics work in the RE's favor:
(https://i.ibb.co/D88Br8N/mgx.jpg)
They will simply use the formula derived by Michelson and claim victory:
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5565d642e4b0b6e4ce20b2f5/t/598d8d93a803bbe5a4b06959/1502686935548/?format=300w)
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?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 11:04:15 AM
The SAGNAC EFFECT will not always prove the rotation of the interferometer itself!!!

The SAGNAC EFFECT proves rotation of aether


The hypothesis leading to the Sagnac effect REQUIRES the existence of ether.

This is accepted by the relativists.

The hallmark of the SAGNAC EFFECT is exactly the precise proof that the interferometer itself (turntable, satellite, planet) is ROTATING.

You must study this field of physics a little deeper.


Let us remember what happened to the GE/FE on youtube when B. Knodel tried to prove that the Earth is at rest using ring laser gyroscopes.

The RE demolished each and everyone of their arguments, across dozens of youtube videos, having gained the upper hand in each and every discussion.


Why?

Because the GE/FE had nothing at their disposal, no formula at all, while the RE were triumphant.

Until now.

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.


Now, here is the best formula in all of physics, the TRUE Sagnac effect formula:

(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)

(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)

Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

l1 is the upper arm.
l2 is the lower arm.

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

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

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

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


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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...
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 04:03:55 PM
Michelson was very careful not to reveal what he meant by "the light beam was retarded".

Because there are two possibilities.

1. The beams suffered a slight lateral deviation.

2. The velocities of the beams underwent a lag.

BOTH should have occurred during the MGX.

But Michelson only mentions one type of retardation.

Since the formula he used is proportional to the area of the interferometer, it is obvious that he registered the first version of the "retardation" of the beams.

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."

(http://image.ibb.co/g7Ah1n/int.jpg)

(https://www.usna.edu/Library/sca/ve-collections/michelson/images/15_M_ether.jpg)

(http://storage.lib.uchicago.edu/ucpa/series1/derivatives_series1/apf1-04511r.jpg)


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

Here is the CORIOLIS FORMULA for the MGX:

4AωsinΦ/c2

Φ = (Φ1 + Φ2)/2


Here is the SAGNAC FORMULA for the MGX:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

V1 = V0cosΦ1
V2 = V0cosΦ2
L1 = L0cosΦ1
L2 = L0cosΦ2

The MGX interferometer, on a rotating Earth, would have been subjected to both effects: CORIOLIS and SAGNAC.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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)?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 05:18:14 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.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 06:39:32 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.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 06:58:53 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?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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...
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 07:42:38 PM
No.

You are under the wrong impression that only ONE of the beams will be retarded. Both of them will be retarded, whether the experiment takes place in the northern hemisphere/semiplane or in the southern hemisphere/semiplane.

Michelson spells out very clearly in both papers, that BOTH the cw and the ccw beams will be retarded.

In fact this is exactly what will happen, please read:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

What Michelson meant was both beams will be retarded, the total lag being proportional to the AREA of the interferometer.

Here is an experiment carried out in the southern hemisphere/semiplane, the ring laser gyroscope was NOT turned 180 degrees as you have suggested:

http://signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf (pages 978-979)

However, on the flat earth aether would flow faster along the tube which is farther from us

No. The ether drift is latitude dependent just as it would be on a spherical earth.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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...
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 08:18:56 PM
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...


This is where you went wrong.

You are using the WRONG flat earth map, namely this one (the unipolar map):

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/43/Map.png/450px-Map.png)

Why didn't you tell your readers that you had this map in mind while you were writing your messages?

Not very nice of you.

In the real FE map, the ether drift will be latitude dependent exactly as in the case of a spherical earth:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/7b/Sandokhan_map.png/450px-Sandokhan_map.png)
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/7b/Sandokhan_map.png/450px-Sandokhan_map.png)

Can you designate sun's path on/along this map?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 08:29:17 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
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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)...

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 08:48:36 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
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmFesF8e4s

This would matter if Australia existed - flat earth for dummies :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBBzu9Cpc1s

FLAT EARTH PROBLEM (LISTEN IT VERY CAREFULLY) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dHkxkY-VwI

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...
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2019, 09:09:06 PM
You are trolling the debate, since you have nothing else to say.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas 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!!!
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: cikljamas on October 19, 2019, 01:55:52 PM
Sun's path along the equator (at Equinoxes) on Sandokhan's flat earth map :
(https://i.postimg.cc/C5vbf1Gn/sandokhan-s-fet-map-1-X.jpg)

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!!! 
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 19, 2019, 04:28:12 PM
You are not paying attention.

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

Rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23.5 degrees, and we get the upper and lower bounds for the orbit of the Sun on a flat earth.

6106.4248/6 = 1017.73747 km, the distance alloted for each gate

The arclength for each gate (space alloted for the each of the six periods running from the winter solstice to the summer solstice, and from the summer solstice to the winter solstice) is 1017.737 km.

(https://preview.ibb.co/b9RvTy/bunda.jpg)

Those 180 windows are arranged over a distance of 6106.4 km, on each side. 30 windows for each gate (six gates in total).

Here is the description of the Sun's orbit at the equinox:

https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2019, 04:52:56 PM
How does that model explain the midnight sun in the north?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 20, 2019, 06:12:00 PM
Your pictures of a midnight sun proves that what you are seeing isn't the sun at all, but a starry reflection off of an uneven reflecting surface.

The Earth has a Moon which reflects the rays of the Sun: it is called Aurora.

https://www.theaurorazone.com/about-the-aurora/aurora-legends

There were several attempts over the years to present the dual sun theory, but the other FE could not properly develop the theory, nor could they prove it.

Other names for the second Moon/Sun: Aurvandil, Eos, Hausos, Thesan, Ushas.

Here is the proof, the Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2009680#msg2009680

(https://i.ibb.co/fM2wxFB/aur.jpg)
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: TheMatrix on October 20, 2019, 07:24:02 PM
Quote
Here is the proof, the Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field:

Another page from your theaurorazone.com seems to suggest that they can...

https://www.theaurorazone.com/about-the-aurora/the-science-of-the-northern-lights/how-do-the-northern-lights-appear

Quote
CME’s usually emanate from the more active areas of the Sun’s surface and they throw a stream of electronically charged solar particles known as Solar Wind into the vastness of space. It is when these particles are directed towards the Earth that we can see the Northern or Southern Lights three or four nights later.

There are also numerous other websites which you can search around for yourself which gives the same account for the cause of the aurora.  Why then do you say that they cannot be explained by an external stream of charged particles. The colours come from ionised atoms of oxygen and nitrogen among others.

Quote
The Earth has a Moon which reflects the rays of the Sun: it is called Aurora.

No that's called Earthshine.  The Moon reflects white light if you hadn't noticed.  How would you get the colours we see in aurora if they were due to reflected light off the Moon?

Check for yourself.  Here is a typical link from our good old friend timeanddate.com

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/earthshine.html


Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 20, 2019, 07:44:48 PM
Why then do you say that they cannot be explained by an external stream of charged particles.

Did you read my previous message?

No that's called Earthshine.  The Moon reflects white light if you hadn't noticed.

You don't seem to understand what is going on.

A SECOND MOON/SUN which orbits the Arctic.
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: TheMatrix on October 20, 2019, 07:50:03 PM
Quote
Here is the proof, the Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field:

Is this not something at you said?  If not then my apologies.

Where is this second Moon or Sun which orbits the Arctic then?  I for one have never heard of that idea?
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: sandokhan on October 20, 2019, 07:53:07 PM
If you are not trolling this thread, then read the information provided which does prove indeed that the Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2009680#msg2009680
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: TheMatrix on October 20, 2019, 08:01:05 PM
I'm certainly not trolling this thread. I am simply telling you what causes aurora. Just because I'm telling you something different to what you obviously believe, you accuse me of 'trolling'.  And don't bother sending any more links to theflatearthsociety because I'm not interested.

I've told you the facts, if you don't want to accept them then that's up to you.  End of.

Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: TomInAustin on October 29, 2019, 06:55:51 PM
I'm certainly not trolling this thread. I am simply telling you what causes aurora. Just because I'm telling you something different to what you obviously believe, you accuse me of 'trolling'.  And don't bother sending any more links to theflatearthsociety because I'm not interested.

I've told you the facts, if you don't want to accept them then that's up to you.  End of.

sandokhan is known for posting links to his own posts as proof.   
Title: Re: I have questions
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 15, 2019, 05:48:29 PM
Did you just post a quote from j*** bl*** on this forum?
Jack Black? He's a legend mate, back off