Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Neutrinos
« on: May 17, 2018, 09:26:02 AM »
Yesterday I joined a very nice colloquiums talk about new results and methods about the detection of high energy neutrinos. That motivated me to asked for the flat-earth believers opinion about neutrinos. Especially the question, how could it be that we can observe neutrinos approaching the detectors from below, through the earth. In the framework of the standard model this is no question, cause the cross section of neutrinos with the earth is extremely low and therefor they can easily travel through the earth. But if the earth is flat and neutrinos are known for traveling in really straight lines, how can they approach the detector from below, if they originate in the sun, other stars, super novas, etc... and all this is always above a flat earth?

If anyone is not so familiar with neutrinos, here is a nice, quite recent publication about neutrinos traveling through the earth: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24459

It's data taken with the IceCube detector which is located next to the south pole (ups!). If you ask for proof or validity of the conclusions, all original data are linked at the end of that article, so everyone invited to analyse them by himself. 

If you think IceCube is fake, here is the link to the application form for visiting IceCube: https://icecube.wisc.edu/outreach/students/visit

Go there, and check out yourself what's going on there.

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2018, 12:21:50 PM »
Well, I guess it depends on if flat earth thought agrees neutrinos exist or if they are considered to be a part of the conspiracy.

However, your comment on neutrinos makes me think of the large body of work done by philosphers, scientists and people of various dispositions concerning the workings of the physical work. Documentations, peer review, published work and such for at least 2 millennia, all agreeing the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting a g type yellow dwarf within a massive galaxy of billions of other stars and building the technology of the world we know today. Researchable, revieable, learnable, falsifiable. Neutrinos and their behavior being a miniscule part of the great throng, and someone tells me all of that is just a conspiracy? I don't get it.

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2018, 02:50:13 PM »
The beam neutrinos experiments represent the most devastating proof against the FET (it goes beyond the ring laser gyroscopes, the other very important proof against FET).

Not only the detection of high energy neutrinos, but also the beam of muon neutrinos beamed INTO THE GROUND.

A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere.

The high-flying FE, who are asked to do media engagements, do not even know where to start, let alone provide any kind of an answer to this fantastic scientific experiment.

The point is that the neutrinos are shot into the ground at a downward angle.

Normally, they could not possibly be detected at a distance of 300 km on a flat earth.



Of course, the fact that ALSO neutrinos are approaching the detectors from below, through the earth, is another huge problem for FET.

Let me remind the FE on this forum that they cannot complain about the angle (energy spectra). Nor can they complain that the neutrinos which have been emitted are not the same as the neutrinos being detected.

Let's see how the UAFE will explain the beam neutrinos + the detection of high energy neutrinos experiments.

« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 02:54:10 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10697
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2018, 06:33:17 AM »
Look at the side view illustrations which illustrate the neutrinos that travel through the earth in these experiments. The beams are spreading outwards:

« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 06:56:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2018, 08:09:52 AM »
Sure they are.

However, you forgot about the discussion you had with a beam neutrino physicist six years ago.

He explained:

"The energy spectrum of the neutrino is a very strong function of the angle of emission. We can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees.

We can easily tell the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees by the energy spectrum we measure.

Your quite right the beam sprays all over the place. We confirm the angle by measuring the energy spectrum. As I say this can be done to within a degree. Especially as after 300km the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees is quite pronounced.

We know where the source is and we can measure the energy spectra there and we know where we are detecting them and we measure them there. We can tell the angle between the beamline and the detector by the energy spectra of the neutrinos.

http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/cartwright/home/images/neutrino-spectrum.gif

The two plots are the on-axis spectrum and the 2 degree (I think) spectrum.

The energy spectra tells you everything about the angle.

The spectrum actually comes from the decay of charged particles used to generate the neutrinos, not from a scattering interaction. Obviously neutrino scattering is negligable.

As for the laser pointer comparison, the neutrino beam is more like a laser, highly focused.

Before impacting the target, the original beam is highly focused through a magnetic horn, which results in an extremely narrow beam of particles, which results in an extremely narrow beam of neutrinos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_horn

How do we know the horn works? Because it has been tested by many experiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neutrino_experiments

In the T2K neutrino source, a beam of protons is accelerated to an energy of 50GeV, and are directed to a target area. The protons strike the target and produce positive pions (an many other particles), which are a type of positively charged meson. After the decay target is a magnetic horn that focuses the pions into a very tight beam. In an average of 26ns a pion decays into a muon and a muon neutrino. After the magnetic horn the neutrino beam spreads out due to the different possible angles that the muon neutrino can be emitted as it decays from the pion. Each of these decay angles results in a certain energy spectrum due to the particle momentum and other factors.

Because T2K is looking for evidence of neutrino oscillations, neutrinos at the 600MeV energy level are desirable, hence the experiment is conducted 2.5 degrees off axis. The energy of the neutrinos observed in the near and far detectors can be measured by the momentum of the particles produced in neutrino collisions.

The physics of the situation we have here is that a paticle decays into amongst other things a muon neutrino. A particle going in the same direction as the decaying parent will have the most energy. Although this is a decay not a collision, from the perpective of momentum conservation its pretty much the same situation, one particle gives its momentum to another.

Confidence is built due to the timing of the observations and the energy spectrum.
For timing in K2K identical atomic clocks were synchronized and driven to the two sites. T2K uses GPS timing as it is much cheaper than atomic clocks. The probability of a coincidence solar neutrino strike at both the near and far detectors drops as more neutrino events are observed.

The momentum and direction of the neutrino can be calculated from the interaction geometry. Commonly a muon neutrino will interact with a nucleus in a detector and cause the emission of a muon. This muon will have roughly the same direction as the neutrino and a predictable momentum. The detector is surrounded in a magnetic field, which causes the muon to deflect, and allows its momentum to be measured. There are several other techniques to measure the momentum but that is the basic one.

In T2K the primary axis of the beam is directed 2.5 degrees below the near detector. On axis, the mean neutrino energy is 2GeV, whereas the mean energy 2.5 degrees off axis is 0.6Gev. Most of the near detector is lined up at 2.5 degrees off axis, but the INGRID detector is in a plus shape centered directly on axis with the beam. The INGRID detector can be used to verify that the beam is pointing where it should be, and that the energy spectra is as expected.

The energy spectra is measured again in the far detector Super K. Here the Cherenkov radiation of the interacting neutrino produces a ring of light on the inside of the Super K chamber, which is lined with photomultiplier tubes. Due to the timing and shape of the ring the energy and flavor of the neutrino can be determined.

The experiment can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees. The effects its trying to measure have a far more subtle effect than that. We use detectors very close to measure the energy spectra accurately. This can then be compared to the far detector allowing a confirmation of a number of physical phenomena, including but not limited to the angle of the far detector with respect to the beamline.

If the Earth was not round then these experiments would not work because the difference between the assumed geometry of the Earth and its true geometry would be a much larger effect than the aims of the experiment.

Well the position of the detector fixes the angle. I mean the far detector weights 50kton and sits in a mine. It really doesn't move an appreciable amount, so whatever the angle maybe, its fixed. Can we agree on that? I posted a link earlier in this thread to the difference in energy spectrum between the neutrino beam on-axis and the neutrino beam at 2 degrees. So the question is, are we able to distinguish these spectra from each other. The answer is yes, easily. This data for T2K is not available yet because it hasn't been taken. Currently the neutrino beam is being commissioned so is only strong enough to see events a the near detector which ERTW has posted pictures of. However previous long baseline experiments K2K (couple of degrees into the Earth), KamLAND(variable degrees as it used nuclear reactors in different places), CNGS(more than K2K less than MINOS, 4ish) and MINOS(maybe more than 5degrees I think, I forgot its baseline) all have peer reviewed papers on the open acess pre-print server arXiv.

The INGRID detector is directly on axis with the beam, and as expected it observes less events at angles further off axis. As for the figures graphing neutrino energy spectrum vs angle, they are produced from direct observation near the source. Each of the several dozen neutrino experiments listed earlier was and is interested in this energy spectrum, and hence the measurement has been verified many times. I found several papers relevant to the prediction and measurement of the neutrino energy spectrum, however I need some time to understand it better myself before I can explain it.

Contains a mathematical derivation of part of the energy spectra relationship:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l07g4j084555m271/fulltext.pdf

Page 10 contains a measurement of the energy spectrum on axis vs 1 degree off axis.
https://web.archive.org/web/20100527123554/http://nwg.phy.bnl.gov/~diwan/talks/others/chiaki-BNLUCLA05.pdf

Contains detailed results from the SciBar experiment, which makes a more accurate measurement of the neutrino energy spectrum:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01589311

Contains a derivation and observations of neutrino energy spectra emitted from a reletivistic plasma:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1983A%26A...125..121G&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

If you have too much time on your hands, here is a 268 page PHD thesis on solar neutrino flux measurements:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/papers/OrebiGannThesis.pdf

This presentation explains how and why the magnetic horn is used to focus the neutrino beam. Page 27 specifically explains why we would want to measure the beam off axis:"
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=31&ved=0CAcQFjAAOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ph.ed.ac.uk%2Fsussp61%2Flectures%2F08_Harris_AcceleratorNeutrinoOscillationPhysics%2FHarris_lecture1.ppt&rct=j&q=neutrino+energy+spectrum+vs+angle&ei=GWhnS7rqPJSusgOI3ID0BA&usg=AFQjCNHrtunWfjRVL_f2wvYBqg8hP_TCzg&sig2=Q7DdIUW2HhTJS76WhrcNVw


Not only this, but also the OP message:

how could it be that we can observe neutrinos approaching the detectors from below, through the earth. In the framework of the standard model this is no question, cause the cross section of neutrinos with the earth is extremely low and therefor they can easily travel through the earth. But if the earth is flat and neutrinos are known for traveling in really straight lines, how can they approach the detector from below, if they originate in the sun, other stars, super novas, etc... and all this is always above a flat earth?

The beam neutrinos experiment and the neutrino detection from below the Earth is totally devastating to the FET.

The resident experts who make media engagements cannot explain these facts at all.

They cannot explain the Michelson-Gale experiment, which recorded the ANGULAR VELOCITY OF THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH (this cannot be disputed in the UAFE context).



A very simple formula.

We have the measured fringe interference, the area of the interferometer, the wavelength of the light, the speed of light: then the angular velocity of the rotation of the Earth can be easily calculated.

The resident expert on the Sagnac effect has no idea that it applies TO TRANSLATIONAL/UNIFORM/LINEAR MOTION.

UAFE cannot explain the beam neutrinos, the detection of neutrinos from below the Earth, the ring laser gyroscopes, the Michelson-Gale experiment.

But I can.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 08:16:45 AM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10697
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2018, 10:25:40 AM »
Sure they are.

However, you forgot about the discussion you had with a beam neutrino physicist six years ago.

He explained:

"The energy spectrum of the neutrino is a very strong function of the angle of emission. We can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees.

We can easily tell the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees by the energy spectrum we measure.

That would assume that they had a correct baseline to know what a shift of a couple of degrees shift through the earth would look like.

Quote
Your quite right the beam sprays all over the place. We confirm the angle by measuring the energy spectrum. As I say this can be done to within a degree. Especially as after 300km the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees is quite pronounced.

We know where the source is and we can measure the energy spectra there and we know where we are detecting them and we measure them there. We can tell the angle between the beamline and the detector by the energy spectra of the neutrinos.

http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/cartwright/home/images/neutrino-spectrum.gif

The two plots are the on-axis spectrum and the 2 degree (I think) spectrum.

The energy spectra tells you everything about the angle.

Again, a correct baseline would be needed.

Quote
The spectrum actually comes from the decay of charged particles used to generate the neutrinos, not from a scattering interaction. Obviously neutrino scattering is negligable.

As for the laser pointer comparison, the neutrino beam is more like a laser, highly focused.

Before impacting the target, the original beam is highly focused through a magnetic horn, which results in an extremely narrow beam of particles, which results in an extremely narrow beam of neutrinos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_horn

This is experiment is sending the particles through the earth. There is no way to get an accurate baseline for on the result if you are assuming certain things about the earth's shape.

Quote
How do we know the horn works? Because it has been tested by many experiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_neutrino_experiments

In the T2K neutrino source, a beam of protons is accelerated to an energy of 50GeV, and are directed to a target area. The protons strike the target and produce positive pions (an many other particles), which are a type of positively charged meson. After the decay target is a magnetic horn that focuses the pions into a very tight beam. In an average of 26ns a pion decays into a muon and a muon neutrino. After the magnetic horn the neutrino beam spreads out due to the different possible angles that the muon neutrino can be emitted as it decays from the pion. Each of these decay angles results in a certain energy spectrum due to the particle momentum and other factors.

Because T2K is looking for evidence of neutrino oscillations, neutrinos at the 600MeV energy level are desirable, hence the experiment is conducted 2.5 degrees off axis. The energy of the neutrinos observed in the near and far detectors can be measured by the momentum of the particles produced in neutrino collisions.

The physics of the situation we have here is that a paticle decays into amongst other things a muon neutrino. A particle going in the same direction as the decaying parent will have the most energy. Although this is a decay not a collision, from the perpective of momentum conservation its pretty much the same situation, one particle gives its momentum to another.

Confidence is built due to the timing of the observations and the energy spectrum.
For timing in K2K identical atomic clocks were synchronized and driven to the two sites. T2K uses GPS timing as it is much cheaper than atomic clocks. The probability of a coincidence solar neutrino strike at both the near and far detectors drops as more neutrino events are observed.

The momentum and direction of the neutrino can be calculated from the interaction geometry. Commonly a muon neutrino will interact with a nucleus in a detector and cause the emission of a muon. This muon will have roughly the same direction as the neutrino and a predictable momentum. The detector is surrounded in a magnetic field, which causes the muon to deflect, and allows its momentum to be measured. There are several other techniques to measure the momentum but that is the basic one.

In T2K the primary axis of the beam is directed 2.5 degrees below the near detector. On axis, the mean neutrino energy is 2GeV, whereas the mean energy 2.5 degrees off axis is 0.6Gev. Most of the near detector is lined up at 2.5 degrees off axis, but the INGRID detector is in a plus shape centered directly on axis with the beam. The INGRID detector can be used to verify that the beam is pointing where it should be, and that the energy spectra is as expected.

The energy spectra is measured again in the far detector Super K. Here the Cherenkov radiation of the interacting neutrino produces a ring of light on the inside of the Super K chamber, which is lined with photomultiplier tubes. Due to the timing and shape of the ring the energy and flavor of the neutrino can be determined.

The experiment can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees. The effects its trying to measure have a far more subtle effect than that. We use detectors very close to measure the energy spectra accurately. This can then be compared to the far detector allowing a confirmation of a number of physical phenomena, including but not limited to the angle of the far detector with respect to the beamline.

If the Earth was not round then these experiments would not work because the difference between the assumed geometry of the Earth and its true geometry would be a much larger effect than the aims of the experiment.

You are assuming a lot here. This isn't a controlled experiment. They are just assuming an earth shape, certain angles, and interpreting such results.

You have shared that the experiment is purpously done off-axis anyway.

Have you never heard of a controlled experiment?

Do you generally admit the need of doing a control, to know what your environment looks like?

Do you agree that you can't really do a control through single unknown environment?

They need to do the experiment through a controlled environment to know what the results mean. If the nature of the earth is unknown, then it is not a controlled environment, and this is not a controlled experiment.

Quote
The beam neutrinos experiment and the neutrino detection from below the Earth is totally devastating to the FET.

The resident experts who make media engagements cannot explain these facts at all.

Hardly. Your line of reasoning is easily defeated by looking at the assumptions made of the experiment. There is only one earth. Controlled experimentation is in order; and without appropriate knowledge one is left to interpret the results.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 10:47:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2018, 11:42:33 AM »
Your basic answer is: they are assuming the wrong shape of the Earth.

They simply shot a beam of muon neutrinos at a downward angle. These neutrinos were detected at a distance of 300 km, hundreds of meters above the ground.

On a flat earth, you'd need a detector located at a depth of some 5 km.

Neutrinos fired directly down should never come back because they should bend at an angle, but they would, exactly on the other side of RE.

Your line of reasoning is easily defeated by looking at the assumptions made of the experiment. There is only one earth. Controlled experimentation is in order; and without appropriate knowledge one is left to interpret the results.

Your line of reasoning might work with the RE, not with me.

You have at your disposal the scientific references which do prove that it is a controlled experiment.

The experiment was NOT carried out to verify the shape of the Earth.

There is no random interpretation of the experiment: everything is clearly explained and readily verified.

The latest facts on the long-baseline neutrino experiments:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06237.pdf


You tried the "baseline" argument six years ago, it was easily dismissed:

"The energy spectrum of the neutrino is a very strong function of the angle of emission. We can easily tell the difference between a couple of degrees. Infact the T2K experiment is deliberately offset by 2 degrees to make the energy spectrum more favourable for the aims of the experiment. In the case of MINOS the angle of the beam was more than the other experiments as it had a baseline of nearer 1000km. I forget the exact angle but probably greater then 5 degrees. Not that it matters we can easily tell the difference between 1 degree and 0 degrees by the energy spectrum we measure."

Seeing that your argument went nowhere, you tried this:

I'm sorry, but how do you shoot out a beam of neutrinos without the beam spreading apart again?

You were quickly shown where you went wrong:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.120


You can no longer dispute the accuracy of the experiment.

A beam of muon neutrinos was sent at a downward angle through the Earth.

Neutrinos fired directly down should never come back because they should bend at an angle, but they would, exactly on the other side of RE.

You have to provide an explanation which uses the UA. It is as simple as this. You cannot complain that the "wrong shape of the Earth was assumed". The experiment was NOT carried out to verify the shape of the Earth.

If you cannot, then the RE have won the debate.

This is what you have to explain:





AND YOU HAVE TO YET ADDRESS THE OP:

how could it be that we can observe neutrinos approaching the detectors from below, through the earth. In the framework of the standard model this is no question, cause the cross section of neutrinos with the earth is extremely low and therefor they can easily travel through the earth. But if the earth is flat and neutrinos are known for traveling in really straight lines, how can they approach the detector from below, if they originate in the sun, other stars, super novas, etc... and all this is always above a flat earth?


Let us suppose that Thork makes a media engagement. People in the audience are eager to find out how physics works on a flat earth. A simple question: how does gravity work on a flat surface?

Thork will shrug his shoulders and simply point his index finger upwards: it is the Earth that is accelerating in an upward motion.

This is the level of ignorance which is prevalent in today's FES.

As a final proof that it is movement of the receiver which is significant--not whether that movement is in a curved or straight line path--a test was run using the highly precise differential carrier phase solution. The reference site was stationary on the earth and assumed to properly apply the Sagnac effect. However, at the remote site the antenna was moved up and down 32 centimeters (at Los Angeles) over an eight second interval. The result of the height movement was that the remote receiver followed a straight line path with respect to the center of the earth.

The Sagnac effect was still applied at the remote receiver. The result was solved for position that simply moved up and down in height the 32 centimeters with rms residuals which were unchanged (i.e. a few millimeters). If a straight line path did not need the Sagnac adjustment to the ranges the rms residuals should have increased to multiple meters. This shows again that it is any motion--not just circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf

(Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, R. Wang/R. Hatch)

ANY UPWARD movement of the Earth would be registered/recorded immediately by the GPS satellites using the Sagnac effect.

Let me remind our resident expert on the Sagnac effect that it applies to UNIFORM/TRANSLATIONAL/LINEAR motion.

First proof:

The following quotations are from Ives' 1938 article.
 
     The experiment was interpreted by its author as positive evidence for the existence of the luminiferous ether…

     It is the purpose of this paper first to show that the Sagnac experiment in its essentials involves no consideration of rotation, and second to investigate the results obtained when transported clocks are used.

 
Ives analyzed the Sagnac experiment using a hexagonal path rather than a circular one.
 
He concluded with this statement:
 
     The net result of this study appears to be to leave the argument of Sagnac as to the significance of his experiment as strong as it ever was.

The Sagnac effect is not due to rotation, but instead is a linear effect due to a true anisotropic light speed in a moving frame.

In 1938 Ives showed by analysis that the measured Sagnac effect would be unchanged if the Sagnac phase detector were moved along a cord of a hexagon-shaped light path rather than rotating the entire structure. Thus, he showed the effect could be induced without rotation or acceleration."

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf (famous H. Ives experiment: Light Signals Sent Around a Closed Path)

Second proof:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

The experiment was repeated with 24 different
arrangements of conveyor speeds, fiber lengths, and the
three different FOC configurations shown in Fig.1.
The conveyor speeds were between 3 and 9 cm/s. The
loops had perimeters of 2.5, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 m; in
each case there were three turns of the fiber wound on
the loop.

As shown in Fig. 3, the phase shift or the traveltime
difference between two counter-propagating light
beams in the moving optic fiber was clearly observed
in all different configurations of FOCs. The phase shift
Δφ, and therefore, the travel-time difference Δt are
proportional to both the total length and the speed of
the moving fiber whether the motion is circular or
uniform. Other tests using smaller end wheels for the
FOC and fiber loops with additional curves also
confirmed the same finding.

Professor Wang's seminal paper did prove that the Sagnac applied to linear motion.

Third proof:




Pretending that satellites do not exist, even though you do use the GPS system, won't help you.

HERE IS A VERTICAL SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER, which immediately records/registers ANY upward or rotational motion:



The ONLY effect detected was the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 11:58:13 AM by sandokhan »

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2018, 07:54:25 AM »
Thanks for your input regarding the experiments with neutrino sources. It's very interesting. Unfortunately, flat earth believers only engaging with the usual low level of understanding responses.

I really like this neutrino experiments, they are quite straight forward. And neutrinos are much better probe, cause they're not effected by magnetic fields or refraction. And the low scattering cross section is also helpful. 

And beyond the question how could the cosmic neutrinos travel through the earth, so that they can approach the surface straight from below, one could extend this to questions like, how could a tiny sun be responsible for the observed flux of sun neutrinos, how could there be any cosmic neutrinos at all, if all stars are just little lights at the sky, and all the other sources of neutrinos are non-existent or of completely different nature and size.

And one could continue with all the other radiation and particles approaching the earth. How does a flat earth believer explains a cosmic microwave radiation background of 2.7 K, and so on, and so.       

*

Offline Spycrab

  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Wait what's going on I fell asleep.
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2018, 04:06:26 PM »
I hate to be the burster of bubbles here, but couldn't the neutrinos just curve up when inside the earth? How can we confirm they travel straight through matter, specifically the earth's insides whatever they may be?
The espionage crustacean strikes again.
Spycrab, you're the best memeber on the fora. Thank you for being born.

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2018, 04:23:30 PM »
I hate to be the burster of bubbles here, but couldn't the neutrinos just curve up when inside the earth? How can we confirm they travel straight through matter, specifically the earth's insides whatever they may be?
They're traveling at close to the speed of light. If they were accelerating that much, then they would oscillate slower.

But yeah, it's almost like they rise at a rate modeled by y=sec(x/6667km+θ)!
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2018, 03:07:52 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Second proof:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

The experiment was repeated with 24 different
arrangements of conveyor speeds, fiber lengths, and the three different FOC configurations shown in Fig.1.
The conveyor speeds were between 3 and 9 cm/s. The loops had perimeters of 2.5, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 m; in each case there were three turns of the fiber wound on the loop.
All accepted, no problems.
Professor Wang's ideas on relativity conflict with Ashby's and the accepted ideas. But Professor Wang's experimental work and his "Generalised Sagnac Theory" is accepted as correct, as far as I know.

Fig. 3

Quote from: sandokhan
As shown in Fig. 3, the phase shift or the traveltime difference between two counter-propagating light beams in the moving optic fiber was clearly observed in all different configurations of FOCs. The phase shift Δφ, and therefore, the travel-time difference Δt are proportional to both the total length and the speed of the moving fiber whether the motion is circular or uniform. Other tests using smaller end wheels for the FOC and fiber loops with additional curves also confirmed the same finding.

Professor Wang's seminal paper did prove that the Sagnac applied to linear motion.
Third proof:
I omitted the text of that "Third proof", just to save space. As far as I know, nobody argues against the fact that "Professor Wang's seminal paper did prove that the Sagnac applied to linear motion".

But the "Fibre Optic Conveyor" does not measure absolute linear motion. It only measures relative linear motion.

The essence of a "Fibre Optic Conveyor", in contrast to a "Fibre Optic Gyroscope", is that the direction of the light path is everywhere co-linear with the direction of motion.
Quote from: Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, and Aiping Yao

Fig. 3(a)
This generalization provides a design principle for a new fiber-optic linear motion sensor (FOLMS), which has a high sensitivity and a high stability. The basic structure of this sensor can be similar to that shown in Fig. 3(a). The linear motion of the top arm of the sensor is detected with a phase difference Δϕ = 4πNΔl/cλ.
Because two beams share the same optical path, the sensor is optically stable. Just as a FOG detects the rotational motion of an object, a FOLMS can detect the relative linear motion between two objects fixed on the top and bottom arms of the parallelogram.

Rest in Generalized Sagnac Effect, Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, and Aiping Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 143901 – Published 27 September 2004
Note that Wang, Zheng, and Yao state " the relative linear motion between two objects".

Note that v⋅Δl is a vector dot product but in the FOC the velocity, v, is always co-linear with the line segment, Δl, so a scalar product can be used.

Quote from: sandokhan
Pretending that satellites do not exist, even though you do use the GPS system, won't help you.

HERE IS A VERTICAL SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER, which immediately records/registers ANY upward or rotational motion:



The ONLY effect detected was the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.
I don't follow. How would a Sagnac Loop detect the CORIOLIS EFFECT?

As you say that is a "SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER" because it has a fixed geometry and it only measures rotational motion as has been demonstrated numerous times right from Sagnac's original experiment and the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.
In any case, you VERTICAL SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER is far too small to detect any rotational motion of the earth unless you are capable of extreme precision. Look at the size of the loop used in the the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment.

But your "SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER" is will not measure linear motion of any sort. The only way to achieve motion co-linear with the light path is to rotate it, making it a Sagnac Gyroscope.

Wang's generalised Sagnac delay, Δϕ = 4πv⋅Δl/cλ, can be applied to your "SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER" with radius, say R.
Rotation about the centre at a rate ω is everywhere co-linear with light path and contributes to the "vector dot product", v⋅Δl,
but any linear motion normal to this axis is normal to the light path and contributes nothing to the "vector dot product", v⋅Δl.


Rotation about other axes and linear motion in other directions could be handled, but the calculation gets harder.

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2018, 05:11:07 AM »
The most important project on neutrino experiments is KATRIN (Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino Experiment). It will begin on June 11, 2018:

https://absuploads.aps.org/presentation.cfm?pid=13772


Professor Wang's ideas on relativity conflict with Ashby's and the accepted ideas.

No homework from you on the subject, just as usual.

Professor Wang is TOTALLY against special relativity.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609235.pdf

In our experiments, as in the FOG, there is no relative motion between the light path and the medium, glass fiber or air-core fiber.

Question: why is this kind of reprehensible behaviour allowed from this user?

The quote he used refers to FOLMS, an experimental hypothetical device, NOT to the actual experiment performed by professor Wang.



The previous message reveals a total lack of concern for science, physics: the use of the wrong quote, and the omission of the correct quote from the paper published by professor Wang.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

The experiment was repeated with 24 different
arrangements of conveyor speeds, fiber lengths, and the
three different FOC configurations shown in Fig.1.
The conveyor speeds were between 3 and 9 cm/s. The
loops had perimeters of 2.5, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 m; in
each case there were three turns of the fiber wound on
the loop.

As shown in Fig. 3, the phase shift or the traveltime
difference between two counter-propagating light
beams in the moving optic fiber was clearly observed
in all different configurations of FOCs. The phase shift
Δφ, and therefore, the travel-time difference Δt are
proportional to both the total length and the speed of
the moving fiber whether the motion is circular or
uniform.
Other tests using smaller end wheels for the
FOC and fiber loops with additional curves also
confirmed the same finding.

Herbert Ives proved in 1938 that the Sagnac effect applies to linear motion:

In 1938 Ives showed by analysis that the measured Sagnac effect would be unchanged if the Sagnac phase detector were moved along a cord of a hexagon-shaped light path rather than rotating the entire structure. Thus, he showed the effect could be induced without rotation or acceleration."

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf (famous H. Ives experiment: Light Signals Sent Around a Closed Path)


The TOPOLOGICAL considerations of the Sagnac effect also prove that it applies to linear/uniform motion:

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

I don't follow. How would a Sagnac Loop detect the CORIOLIS EFFECT?

Very easy to follow.

A ten-part demonstration that Michelson and Gale actually measured the CORIOLIS effect and not the Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024144#msg2024144

This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA for circuital light beams.

Here it is:

Δt = 4AΩsinΦ/c^2 (where Φ is the latitude)

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

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP20120200009_86423451.pdf (page 198)

The vector potential of Coriolis forces in a rotating frame of reference and the effect of these forces on counterpropagating beams of light is a well-established subject in physics.

This formula for the Coriolis effect on circuital light beams can be derived by an undergraduate student of physics.

By contrast, the correct Sagnac effect formula is:

Δt = 4vL/c^2

Moreover, anytime one has an interferometer with different radii (that is, an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation), one is going to measure first the Coriolis effect on the light beams.

This is the crucial point which was missed by all of the researchers in the field of the Sagnac effect.

The formula featuring the area/angular velocity is the formula for the Coriolis effect; the formula which includes the linear velocity/path is the Sagnac effect equation.

Michelson derived the Coriolis effect formula.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023972214666

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103091.pdf

Coriolis Force and Sagnac Effect

Because of acting of gravity-like Coriolis force the trajectories of co- and anti-rotating photons have different radii in the rotating reference frame, while in the case of the equal radius the effective gravitational potentials for the photons have to be different.

Here is the CORIOLIS effect formula used by Michelson and Gale:



We have the linear velocity (angular velocity x radius), and the length of the segment: this is the correct Sagnac formula.

The Michelson-Gale formula, by contrast, features NO LINEAR VELOCITY AND NO RADIUS OF THE LOOP, having eliminated the linear velocity from the very start: this is not the Sagnac phase shift formula.

The Coriolis effect formula derived by Michelson features only the area and the angular velocity. Since vr = r x Ω, and r = 6,378.164 km, the Sagnac is larger in magnitude than the Coriolis effect by at least the r = 6,378.164 km factor.

It is obvious that the fringe shifts recorded by A. Michelson and H. Gale did not register the Sagnac effect at all; only the Coriolis effect (much smaller in magnitude) was observed.

The value of the main term of the Coriolis effect for an interferometer (in the shape of a rectangle, trapezoid, annular sector) located away from the geometric center of the rotation (of the turntable/Earth/circle) will be THE SAME as the value of the Sagnac effect for the same interferometer whose center of rotation now coincides with that of the turntable/Earth/circle.

This is a Sagnac interferometer, whose loop coincides with the center of rotation:



This is a Sagnac interferometer, whose loop IS AWAY FROM the center of rotation, featuring two different radii (from the center to both legs of the interferometer):



Since now one has two different radii to deal with, the Coriolis effect will first be recorded/registered, using this formula:

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

But this is NOT the true Sagnac effect.

The true Sagnac effect will be:

Δt = 4vL/c^2

v = (RADIUS TO THE LONG LEG OF THE INTERFEROMETER) X angular velocity

L = long leg of the interferometer

This is what Michelson cleverly REMOVED from his equation: the RADIUS OF THE EARTH ITSELF, 6,378.164 KM.

That is, the Sagnac effect will be larger than the Coriolis effect upon the interferometer by a factor of at least 6,378.164 km.


The SAGNAC EFFECT is caused by the POTENTIAL: a demonstration from topology, by one of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044039#msg2044039


Contrary to the uninformed opinion expressed in the previous message, the technology has greatly advanced since the MGX. Here is the ring laser interferometer which measures the CORIOLIS effect (thought to be the angular velocity of the rotation of the Earth):




The CORIOLIS effect measured is the effect of the rotation of the ether field above the stationary Earth.


The technology used in Doug Marrett's vertical Sagnac interferometer is the most advanced so far:



It uses a fiber-optic gyroscope (FOG).

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Sagnac/SagnacEarth.html

The experiment detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT, just like Michelson and Gale did.

« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 05:14:04 AM by sandokhan »

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2018, 07:05:44 AM »
I hate to be the burster of bubbles here, but couldn't the neutrinos just curve up when inside the earth? How can we confirm they travel straight through matter, specifically the earth's insides whatever they may be?

First of all because there is no force that would act on the neutrinos to change there direction. Neutrinos only act via scattering events with quarks and the scattering is isotropic around the direction the neutrinos are moving. There is no preferred direction that would lead to a bending into a certain direction. Then you can measure the full angular dependence of all neutrinos arriving at the detector and you can compare their signatures. A scattered neutrino has a different signature as non-scattered one. So you can for example compare neutrinos that arrive horizontally at the detector with the ones arriving vertically from below. 

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2018, 11:58:14 AM »
The most important project on neutrino experiments is KATRIN (Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino Experiment). It will begin on June 11, 2018:
https://absuploads.aps.org/presentation.cfm?pid=13772

The topic is Neutrinos, so to avoid further unnecessary clutter go and read the reply to the Sagnac part in Sandokhan Generalised Sagnac.

Bye bye.

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2018, 01:47:06 PM »
A physics illiterate does not tell me where to respond, certainly not in the CN section.

Let us take a look at the full panoply of the physics illiteracy exemplified by rabinoz.

Kelly is completely wrong there because when viewed from an inertial reference frame outside the loop the two opposing lights beams do not travel the same distance and there is no conflict with SR.

Only a physics illiterate would make such a statement.

Dr. A.G. Kelly:



Sure, "the effect could be induced without rotation or acceleration", just as Wang showed, but there is still no detection of absolute linear motion
But we never needed Herbert Ives to prove that, though you will note that Herbert Ives had a complete polygonal path.


Only a physics illiterate does not understand that Herbert Ives proved that the Sagnac is measured, as an example, on a hexagonal path. That hexagon was made up of straight lines: uniform, linear, translational motion.

The physics illiterate REMOVED the link to Ives' paper so that it could not be accessed.

Here it is:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf (famous H. Ives experiment: Light Signals Sent Around a Closed Path)

Dr. Ives:

It is the purpose of this paper first to show that the Sagnac experiment in its essentials involves no consideration of rotation, and second to investigate the results obtained when transported clocks are used.


In 1942, Dufour and Prunier PROVED once again that the Sagnac effect applies to linear paths:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1978311#msg1978311

Remember that the contribution to the delay of an increment of the loop is the "vector dot product", v⋅Δl.
So the only motion on a rigid loop like that that can cause a Sagnac delay is the component of the velocity along the length at each point.
Hence rotational motion contributes directly, but any motion normal to loop contributes nothing.


Question: why is this physics illiterate allowed to post in the upper forums? Certainly his messages belong to the CN.

Professor R. Wang:

Thus, for a fiber segment having an actual length of Δl, its effective length is Δl cosθ, which is a projection of the fiber onto the motion direction. As shown in Fig. 2, our experiment demonstrates that the effective length contributes the phase difference, not the actual length; therefore, the phase difference ΔΦ is not 4vΔl=cλ, but 4πvΔl cosθ/cλ = 4vπΔl/cλ, which is the dot product between two vectors.

to the delay of an increment of the loop is the "vector dot product", v⋅Δl.

The formula is: 4πvΔl cosθ/cλ, which is the CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA.

For the other experiments Professor Wang does NOT use a dot product anymore.

In fact, by using a PHASE-CONJUGATE MIRROR, the Sagnac formula is derived for an interferometer without loops or area:

SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA OR A LOOP

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf

The use of a phase-conjugate mirror has permitted new breakthroughs in the experimental science of the Sagnac effect.



The equation which expresses the relationship between interference fringes and time differences is F=dt[c/λ] (where dt = 4Aω/c2).

This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path. Second, it gives us important implications: The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ where v is the speed of the moving arc segment AB (where R is the radius of the circular motion, Ω is the rotational rate).

If we increase the radius of the circular motion as shown in Fig. 6, the arc segment AB will approach a linear segment AB, the circular motion will approach the linear motion, the phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment will approach the phase-conjugate first-order experiment as shown in Fig. 4, and the phase shift is always φ = 4πvL/cλ.


The Sagnac effect for a ROTATING LINEAR SEGMENT interferometer IS: 2vL/c2, where v=RΩ.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf


We have the linear velocity (angular velocity x radius), and the length of the segment: this is the correct Sagnac formula.


The Michelson-Gale formula, by contrast, features NO LINEAR VELOCITY AND NO RADIUS OF THE LOOP, having eliminated the linear velocity from the very start: this is not the Sagnac phase shift formula.


Question: why is this physics illiterate allowed to paper the upper forums with his time-wasting messages?


Not quite. A rigid (non-deformable) loop is not sensitive to linear motion.

A demonstration to the contrary for the physics illiterate.

"Sagnac effect is a change in propagation time for light going in a closed path. The time delay Δt appears when a test equipment is rotated with an angular velocity Ώ. Sagnac effect is frequently used in rate gyros in navigational systems. Fiber optics is used with light-speed c inside the fiber in a circular light path. The difference in propagation time Δt for two opposite directions of light is described as

Δt = 4AΩ/c2

Where A is enclosed area. Δt is derived based on an integration of Ω over A.

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

Δt = 4vL/c2

producing the same value as the earlier expression. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. These two integrations have different physical implications. We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area. Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.

We conclude that the later expression

Δt = 4vL/c2

is the correct interpretation."

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159

"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."

Therefore, the formula for the Sagnac phase shift which features the area and the angular velocity IS INCORRECT. Only the formula which includes the linear velocity is CORRECT.


I'll ignore your claims where you claim to be smarter that Michelson who knew that he was on a rotating Globe.

Michelson used the CORIOLIS FORMULA.

Very easy to prove.

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

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

The derivation for the Coriolis effect formula.

Classical Interpretations of Relativistic Phenomena

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP20120200009_86423451.pdf (pg. 198)


The formula for the fringe measurements caused by the Coriolis effect IS THE SAME as the formula derived by A. Michelson for the Sagnac effect as applied to the rotation of the Earth.

The Coriolis effect (not the Sagnac effect) is responsible for the non-null result of the Michelson–Gale experiment assisted by Pearson and the experiment of Bilger et al.


As was shown above, the Sagnac phase shift formula featuring the area and the angular velocity is the incorrect mathematical expression.

That is why the derivation published by A. Michelson is completely wrong: the data for the Michelson-Gale experiment was obtained by measuring the Coriolis effect and not the Sagnac effect.


The physics illiterate is at it again, using an unbelievable deceptive argument:

Note that the expression for the incremental delay caused by a small length, Δl, is Δϕ = 4πv⋅Δl/cλ is a vector expression.
The incremental delay is not simply found from the product |v| . |Δl| but the vector dot product, v⋅Δl.


It was shown above that the vector expression means this:


Professor R. Wang:

Thus, for a fiber segment having an actual length of Δl, its effective length is Δl cosθ, which is a projection of the fiber onto the motion direction. As shown in Fig. 2, our experiment demonstrates that the effective length contributes the phase difference, not the actual length; therefore, the phase difference ΔΦ is not 4vΔl=cλ, but 4πvΔl cosθ/cλ = 4vπΔl/cλ, which is the dot product between two vectors.

to the delay of an increment of the loop is the "vector dot product", v⋅Δl.

The formula is: 4πvΔl cosθ/cλ, which is the CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA.

For the other experiments Professor Wang does NOT use a dot product anymore.

The equation which expresses the relationship between interference fringes and time differences is F=dt[c/λ] (where dt = 4Aω/c2).

This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path. Second, it gives us important implications: The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ where v is the speed of the moving arc segment AB (where R is the radius of the circular motion, Ω is the rotational rate).

If we increase the radius of the circular motion as shown in Fig. 6, the arc segment AB will approach a linear segment AB, the circular motion will approach the linear motion, the phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment will approach the phase-conjugate first-order experiment as shown in Fig. 4, and the phase shift is always φ = 4πvL/cλ.


The Sagnac effect for a ROTATING LINEAR SEGMENT interferometer IS: 2vL/c2, where v=RΩ.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf


We have the linear velocity (angular velocity x radius), and the length of the segment: this is the correct Sagnac formula.


This is the formula published by Michelson in 1904 and 1925:



Michelson thought that this expression for the fringe shift measured the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation (due to a Sagnac interferometer).

However, this is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA for circuital light beams.

Here it is:

Δt = 4AΩsinΦ/c^2 (where Φ is the latitude)

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

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP20120200009_86423451.pdf (page 198)

The vector potential of Coriolis forces in a rotating frame of reference and the effect of these forces on counterpropagating beams of light is a well-established subject in physics.

This formula for the Coriolis effect on circuital light beams can be derived by an undergraduate student of physics.

By contrast, the correct Sagnac effect formula is:

Δt = 4vL/c^2

The Michelson-Gale formula, by contrast, features NO LINEAR VELOCITY AND NO RADIUS OF THE LOOP, having eliminated the linear velocity from the very start: this is not the Sagnac phase shift formula.

The Coriolis effect formula derived by Michelson features only the area and the angular velocity. Since vr = r x Ω, and r = 6,378.164 km, the Sagnac is larger in magnitude than the Coriolis effect by at least the r = 6,378.164 km factor.

It is obvious that the fringe shifts recorded by A. Michelson and H. Gale did not register the Sagnac effect at all; only the Coriolis effect (much smaller in magnitude) was observed.

The value of the main term of the Coriolis effect for an interferometer (in the shape of a rectangle, trapezoid, annular sector) located away from the geometric center of the rotation (of the turntable/Earth/circle) will be THE SAME as the value of the Sagnac effect for the same interferometer whose center of rotation now coincides with that of the turntable/Earth/circle.

This is a Sagnac interferometer, whose loop coincides with the center of rotation:



This is a Sagnac interferometer, whose loop IS AWAY FROM the center of rotation, featuring two different radii (from the center to both legs of the interferometer):



Since now one has two different radii to deal with, the Coriolis effect will first be recorded/registered, using this formula:

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

But this is NOT the true Sagnac effect.

The true Sagnac effect will be:

Δt = 4vL/c^2

v = (RADIUS TO THE LONG LEG OF THE INTERFEROMETER) X angular velocity

L = long leg of the interferometer

This is what Michelson cleverly REMOVED from his equation: the RADIUS OF THE EARTH ITSELF, 6,378.164 KM.

That is, the Sagnac effect will be larger than the Coriolis effect upon the interferometer by a factor of at least 6,378.164 km.

This effect WAS NEVER RECORDED BY MM, MG, H experiments.

This means that the Earth is stationary.

If this type of interferometer is used, being located away from the center of rotation, one is going to measure the following effects:

1. THE CORIOLIS EFFECT (which was recorded by Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale and Hammar)

The Coriolis effect will be:

4ΩA/c^2 (this term is multiplied by sinΦ, where Φ is the latitude)

2. THE TRUE SAGNAC EFFECT, which was NOT recorded by MG, MM, H exp.

Then the value of the Sagnac effect will measure: 4ΩrL/c^2, where r is the distance from the center of the circle to the upper leg of the rectangle.

The Coriolis effect is 4ΩA/c^2, where A = Lh.

The Sagnac effect value will be 4ΩrL/c^2.

The ratio will be r/h.

Thus, by contrast, A. Michelson and H. Gale actually calculated the Sagnac formula for a rectangle with sides 2010 ft (612.65 m) and 1113 ft (339.24 m) which is placed at the center of the rotation.

This is equivalent to calculating main term of the Coriolis effect formula, if we place the rectangular interferometer at the surface of the Earth, as was done in the Michelson-Gale experiment.

The ratio of the correct Sagnac formula to the Coriolis effect formula will be:

6,378.164/0.33924.

3. THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT

Not recorded by the MM, MG and H experiments.

The orbital Sagnac effect is 60 TIMES larger than the rotational Sagnac effect.

4. THE GALACTIC SAGNAC EFFECT

The galactic Sagnac effect is 8 times larger than the orbital Sagnac effect, thus 480 times larger than the rotatational Sagnac.

The fact that the MM, MX and H experiments recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, means that the Earth is stationary.

IF THE EARTH HAD BEEN ROTATING AROUND THE SUN, OR AROUND ITS OWN AXIS, the Michelson-Gale interferometer (a Sagnac interferometer) SHOULD HAVE RECORDED THE ORBITAL AND ROTATIONAL SAGNAC AT ONCE. In fact it only recorded the Coriolis effect of the ether drift rotation.


For the physics illiterate, FURTHER PROOF that if two radii are present, one is going to measure first the Coriolis effect:


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023972214666

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103091.pdf

Coriolis Force and Sagnac Effect

Because of acting of gravity-like Coriolis force the trajectories of co- and anti-rotating photons have different radii in the rotating reference frame, while in the case of the equal radius the effective gravitational potentials for the photons have to be different.




An interferometer with DIFFERENT RADII (located away from the center of rotation) will manifest the Coriolis force in the form of a phase shift 4AΩ/c2.

This formula is the equivalent of a Sagnac phase shift, where the interferometer is placed concentric with the center of the rotation of the turntable.

The real Sagnac phase shift will feature a linear velocity and the radius of the loop.


The physics illiterate has to understand that the Sagnac effect is caused by the POTENTIAL, the Whittaker ether waves:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2039636#msg2039636

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2018, 02:49:10 PM »
Quote from: junker
And yeah, they would both end up getting banned. Maybe not in 24 hours, but I know Rab has a ban or two over there. Jackblack wouldn't bother trying over there, as he would be severely outmatched in math/physics by Parsifal, Pete, and Thork (and likely more I am not even thinking of at the moment). It would be a bloodbath, so he probably would get banned for resorting to shitposting when he is getting smashed in a debate.

rabinoz has already resorted to shitposting and plain trolling right here in this thread. That is the reason why the general consensus over on the other forum is that rabinoz is a chatbot.

Somebody has to step in and inform this user that he can no longer use trolling as a basic path of least resistance to obfuscation, which he is intentionally doing on a regular basis.

The miserable tactics he uses on both forums permit him to "survive" in a debate where his arguments are getting smashed.

He is not here to debate, only to deny, to say no, using quotes pulled out of the wrong context, or refusing to accept direct proofs/demonstrations, published in peer-reviewed journals, which refute his statements.

Two papers which prove that the formula used by Michelson in 1925 is the Coriolis effect on counterpropagating beams of light:

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

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


This is the CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA:

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

Its magnitude is much smaller than the effect predicted by the correct Sagnac equation:

Δt = 4vL/c^2

This is how Michelson was able to fool the entire scientific community by having published a formula which ONLY features the area and the angular velocity, which is the CORIOLIS effect formula.

The Sagnac effect formula features the linear velocity and the radius of the loop.

Here is a second paper which proves that if the interferometer features TWO DIFFERENT RADII, one will actually measure the Coriolis effect first:


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023972214666

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0103091.pdf

Coriolis Force and Sagnac Effect

Because of acting of gravity-like Coriolis force the trajectories of co- and anti-rotating photons have different radii in the rotating reference frame, while in the case of the equal radius the effective gravitational potentials for the photons have to be different.


"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."

Therefore, the formula for the Sagnac phase shift which features the area and the angular velocity IS INCORRECT. Only the formula which includes the linear velocity is CORRECT.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10200
    • View Profile
Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2018, 03:14:24 PM »
The most important project on neutrino experiments is KATRIN (Karlsruhe Tritium Neutrino Experiment). It will begin on June 11, 2018:
https://absuploads.aps.org/presentation.cfm?pid=13772

The topic is Neutrinos, so to avoid further unnecessary clutter go and read the reply to the Sagnac part in Sandokhan Generalised Sagnac.

Bye bye.

Yeah, lay off the worthless drive-by posts that don't contribute anything to the thread. Warned. Also, this is your 3rd warning in recent months, next one is going to be a 3-day timeout.


rabinoz has already resorted to shitposting and plain trolling right here in this thread....
Somebody has to step in and inform this user that he can no longer use trolling as a basic path of least resistance to obfuscation, which he is intentionally doing on a regular basis.
sandokhan, I agree with you in this instance. Please use the report button in cases like this, as I don't always view every post in every thread. I would also suggest just reporting and moving on, without calling him out. It is giving him the attention he seems to crave. If you report posts and aren't seeing a response, then feel free to PM me or another moderator.

Re: Neutrinos
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2018, 04:30:10 PM »
A conclusion to this brief presentation of the Sagnac effect vs. the Coriolis effect.

It is extremely important to both the FE and the RE to understand the hoax perpetrated by Albert Michelson and Henry Gale in 1925.

The MG experiment was suggested by Dr. Ludwik Silberstein. In two papers, published in 1921 and 1924, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect should be explained in terms of the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves (Phil. Mag., Ser. 6,  Vol. 48, The rotation of earth as reference frame for light propagation, 1924).

So, Michelson was well aware that his formula was actually the Coriolis effect equation.

The formula published by Michelson was this:



In order to derive this formula, Michelson used TWO DIFFERENT RADII for the interferometer:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024700#msg2024700

Michelson was using to full advantage the fact that back in the period 1913-1924, the topological considerations of the Sagnac effect were not investigated at all; thus, he was able to SUBSTITUTE the Coriolis effect for the Sagnac effect formula.

At the end of the experiment, he was simply able to claim that the interferometer built in Clearing, Illinois, measured the angular velocity of the Earth, using the Sagnac effect.

Once the topological considerations of the Sagnac effect became known, a clear distinction between the integration over a surface and the line integral in Stokes' formula had to be made.

ONLY the line integral formulation is correct in the case of the Sagnac effect experiment.

My previous message included the two papers which not only prove that the formula for the Coriolis effect on counterpropagating beams of light is the same as that published by Michelson, but also that anytime two radii are being used for the Sagnac interferometer, the experiment will register first the Coriolis effect.

If the interferometer is removed from the center of rotation (like Michelson and Gale did), the first effect being recorded will be the Coriolis effect on the light beams.

However, the MGX did NOT record the true Sagnac rotational effect, nor the orbital Sagnac effect.

This means that they recorded only the effects of the rotating ether field above the surface of the Earth upon the interferometer.


Dr. Terence W. Barrett (Stanford Univ., Princeton Univ., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Univ. of Edinburgh, author of over 200 papers on advanced electromagnetism) has investigated the Sagnac effect using advanced topology, and his conclusions are most impressive.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288491190_SAGNAC_EFFECT_A_consequence_of_conservation_of_action_due_to_gauge_field_global_conformal_invariance_in_a_multiply-joined_topology_of_coherent_fields

Moreover, in the Sagnac effect there are two vector potential components with respect to clockwise and counterclockwise beams. The measured quantity, as will be explained more fully below, is then the phase factor or the integral of the potential difference between those beams and related to the angular velocity difference between the two beams. Therefore, as the vector potential measures the momentum gain and the scalar potential measures the kinetic energy gain, the photon will acquire “mass.”














T.W. Barrett, "Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations" pg 6 - 85

From a topological point of view, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations are a LINEAR THEORY, U(1).

When extended to SU(2) or higher symmetry forms, Maxwell's theory possesses non-Abelian commutation relations, and addresses global, i.e., nonlocal in space, as well as local phenomena with the potentials used as local-to-global operators.


The different velocities of clockwise- and counter-clockwise-rotating light beams in the Sagnac interferometer are due to the motion of the ether.


The observed interference effect is clearly the optical whirling effect due to the movement of the system in relation to the ether and directly manifests the existence of the ether.

G. Sagnac

This ether is a dynamic, and not an inert, ether.

The Michelson-Gale experiment measured the CORIOLIS FORCE of the rotation of the potential (ether).

T.W. Barrett proved that the Sagnac effect can only be described by the original set of the equations published by J.C. Maxwell.


Just like the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Sagnac effect is an example of a TOPOLOGICAL MULTIPLY-CONNECTED DOMAIN in the presence of a topological obstruction.

That is, the Sagnac effect CANNOT be described in the context of the U(1) linear theory; it can only be explained by the SU(2) group of transformations.

Dr. Terence W. Barrett:

Topology has been used to provide answers to questions concerning what is most fundamental in physical explanation. That question itself implies the question concerning what mathematical structures one uses with confidence to adequately “paint” or describe physical models built from empirical facts. For example, differential equations of motion cannot be fundamental, because they are dependent on boundary conditions which must be justified—usually by group theoretical considerations. Perhaps, then, group theory is fundamental.

Group theory certainly offers an austere shorthand for fundamental transformation rules. But it appears to the present writer that the final judge of whether a mathematical group structure can, or cannot, be applied to a physical situation is the topology of that physical situation. Topology dictates and justifies the group transformations. So for the present writer, the answer to the question of what is the most fundamental physical description is that it is a description of the topology of the situation. With the topology known, the group theory description is justified and equations of motion can then be justified and defined in specific differential equation form. If there is a requirement for an understanding more basic than the topology of the situation, then all that is left is verbal description of visual images. So we commence an examination of electromagnetism under the assumption that topology defines group transformations and the group transformation rules justify the algebra underlying the differential equations of motion.

Those situations in which the Aμ potentials are measurable possess a topology, the transformation rules of which are describable by the SU(2) group; and those situations in which the Aμ potentials are not measurable possess a topology, the transformation rules of which are describable by the U(1) group.


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a9bc/aee223173c4fef38a36623c550a05c584801.pdf

Topology and the Physical Properties of Electromagnetic Fields


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288491661_Electromagnetic_phenomena_not_explained_by_Maxwell%27s_equations

Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pp.6-86: Electromagnetic phenomena not explained by Maxwell's equations

Maxwell's linear theory is of U(1) symmetry form with Abelian commutation relations. It can be extended to include physically meaningful Aμ effects by its reformulation  in SU(2) and higher symmetry forms. The commutation relations of conventional classical Maxwell theory are Abelian. When extended to SU(2) or higher symmetry forms, Maxwell's theory possesses non-Abelian commutation relations, and addresses global, i.e., nonlocal in space, as well as local phenomena with the potentials used as local-to-global operators. 

But to return to Maxwell's original formulation: Maxwell did place the A field at center stage and did use quaternionic algebra to dress his theory. We know now that quaternionic algebra is described by the SU(2) group of transformations, and vector algebra by the U(1) group of transformations.