*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary may be found here:



In regards to the gyroscope, Bob says that he has never actually touched the device himself and gives us some more details about the event.

Jeran's response starts at the 14:20 mark. Jeran confirms that the Behind the Curve team did not accurately portray the experiment as it occured and engaged in egregious selective editing. Jeran also alleges that they engaged various other underhanded tactics such as showing footage of a nearby run down house on cinder blocks and implying that it was his own.

Wow, thought Bob would never get to the point.

But he did.

So it sounds like even though he distances himself from the gyro saying he never touched it, it sounds like he is saying that it was showing the near 15 degrees per hour, including inside the zero gauss  chamber, however inside a Helmholtz coil the gyro stopped working.

Now a Helmholtz coil can be used to produce a weak magnetic field to cancel the earth's magnetic field, but if that was all it took, the zero gauss chamber should have stopped the gyro too.

A helmholtz coil can also be used to produce a powerful magnetic field - so I'm guessing that a powerful magnetic field shut down the gyro.

What he didn't mention, which I would love to know, is whether during this shutdown period the gyro was still working as a gyro for local rotation of artificial 15 deg/hr but ignoring the aether rotation, or if it was literally shut down and not sensing anything.

Reason being is because if it was still accurately sensing local rotation but not the aether rotation, then evidently the helmholtz coil blocks the 15 degrees per hour aether rotation but not actual functionality.

If the helmholtz coil blocks the aether's 15deg/h but doesn't block manually induced rotation of 15deg/h, then that is very significant.

However, it may be that a strong magntic field causes the gyro to lose sensitivity to slow rotations, so if the helmholtz blocks all rotation readings at 15deg/h then it's simply shutting it down and is not a useful datapoint, it just means that ring laser gyros have issues with strong magnetic fields that can prevent them from operating.

~~

Hmm. In the above video Bob said that the 15 degrees per hour would be different depending where on the flat earth you were, just like on a globe.


That doesn't make sense. Unless the aether is rotating at different speeds over different parts of the earth.

On the globe model, if the gyro's axis is oriented pointing up at local level, then yeah, if you're  on the poles, the gyro would read the 15deg/hr.

As you move toward the equator, keeping the gyro pointing up with regards to local level, the rotation would decrease and reach zero right on the equator.

But anywhere on earth if you pointed the gyro's axis at the north star, it would read the 15deg/hr.

However on a flat earth, I'm assuming that the aether turns all the same rate.

Or does it turn one way at the north pole, zero at the equator, and the other way at the ice ring?

Maybe that explains how the stars curve one way in the southern hemisplane, and the other way in the northern -- because the aether is rotating 15deg/hr one way in the center and 15deg/hr at the edge, and not at all on the equator.

It would be very interesting to take this gyro to the equator and tip it up 90 degrees and see if the axis of rotation was parallel to the ground there.

I would be surprised though if magnetism is involved because the earth's  magnetic field doesn't rotate at 15 degrees per hour. And if a laser ring gyro was sensitive to weak magnetic fields, they'd be very unreliable.

~~~

I feel bad for Jeran, he didn't have a single cameraman of his own and the film crew wouldn't share theirs. Always bring own cameraman.

According to Jeran, the result was inconclusive "A little of this and a little of that." He didn't comment on whether there was a single successful passage of light on either the flat or round earth position of the flashlight.

I would have liked to hear Jeran clarify whether or not a flat earth light path test did work once, and whether a curved earth light path worked once.

We believe the curved earth position worked once, since the film said so and Jeran didn't deny it in his followup, but Jeran also said "a little of this and a little of that" which sort of suggests there was some flat-earth results too, but he didn't actually come out and say it.

I look forward to followup experiments by both Bob and Jeran.

Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2019, 10:59:17 AM »
Unless the aether is rotating at different speeds over different parts of the earth.

The ether is LATITUDE DEPENDENT: a basic discovery made by Dr. Dayton Miller (Princeton University).

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

So it sounds like even though he distances himself from the gyro saying he never touched it, it sounds like he is saying that it was showing the near 15 degrees per hour, including inside the zero gauss  chamber, however inside a Helmholtz coil the gyro stopped working.

The GE, UAFE and the other FE still don't get it.

The RE claim that the formula used for the RLGs (ring laser gyroscopes) is the SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA, which measures rotation.

This claim was put forth for the first time by Albert Michelson in 1925.

The UAFE cannot bring into question 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 folks who performed the experiment in the video seem to be under the impression that it might be explained by the influence of the rotation of heaven around a stationary Earth. That, however, would be the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the RLGs.

The RE are claiming that the formula used for the RLGs is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

That is why the UAFE/GE/other FE do not stand a chance in this kind of a debate.

If Gauss zero chambers or Helmholtz coils are used to try to make the gyro stop working, the RE will immediately bring to the debate HAMMAR'S EXPERIMENT, which cannot be explained by the GE/UAFE at all. Moreover they will claim that a very strong magnetic field simply shuts down the gyro.

So, the GE/UAFE and other FE still have to deal with the claim issued by Michelson in 1925 and corroborated by each and every RLG experiment, that the formula used in these experiments is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation.

Until they do so, the RE win hands down.

Unless the GE/UAFE/FE make use of my formula:


*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2019, 05:30:52 PM »
So then are you basically saying that the aether rotates with the stars -- in other words, if I used a 3 axis RLG to measure aether rotation on the north pole, I would find that it matched the movement of the stars there, and if I did it on the south edge, it would give a rotation in the opposite direction, and again, match the direction of the stars there?

And at the equator, would there be no rotation of the aether on any axis?

Or is the rotation of the aether ~15 degrees per hour over the whole earth, but just the axis just changes from being pointed straight up at the north pole, horizontal at the equator, and pointed straight down at the ice ring?

Also, would a mechanical gyro also track the aether rotation? Or would it be stationary to the earth? or would it track the sun?

Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2019, 06:00:00 PM »
What you need to understand is that the formula for the RLGs is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Here is the derivation of the final beat frequency formula, obtained from the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35460022.pdf (pages 9-11)

The formula used in laser optics is the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation; however, the counterpropagating beams of light in an interferometers is a SAGNAC EFFECT experiment.

A laser ring gyroscope is fully equipped to register/record TWO TYPES OF ROTATIONAL MOTIONS: either the ether drift rotation (CORIOLIS EFFECT) or the rotation of the Earth around its own axis (SAGNAC EFFECT). Each and every interferometer, since 1913, including the Michelson-Gale 1925 experiment, has registered ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

RLGs are fully equipped to detect both the CORIOLIS EFFECT (a physical effect on the light beams proportional to the area of the interferometer) and the SAGNAC EFFECT (an electromagnetic effect proportional to the radius of the rotation).

However, it is either/or.

If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the CORIOLIS EFFECT, then the Earth is stationary (existence of the ether drift).

If the ring laser gyroscope measures/detects the SAGNAC EFFECT, then the Earth is rotating (no ether drift).

Since 1913, all interferometers, especially the ring laser gyroscopes have detected ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, nothing else.

This is why all of the youtube flat earthers have no chance at all in a debate involving RLGs or the MGX: without my formula, the RE will win since they claim that their formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 06:01:56 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2019, 06:53:17 PM »
Sandokhan,

Thanks for the response!

As I'm not very good with math, so please be patient as I try to understand this.

I did take a glance at the doctorate thesis you linked, but pages 9-11 seem to be the index of figures. Was there a particular figure you intended for me to see?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but If I correctly understand what you're saying it is this:

1: The RLG does give a constant rate reading. A beat frequency.

2: However, there are two different formulas you can use to convert that beat frequency to a rotation: One formula for Coriolis Effect, and the other for Sagnac Effect.

3: One is for calculating the rotation of the ether rotation, the other is for calculating gyro rotation. (I'm assuming that earth rotation and gyro rotation are the same from the perspective of the gyro.)

4: Using the wrong formula would give a calculated rate of rotation that was incorrect.

5: The ~15 degrees per hour is not the actual rate of rotation of the ether because it was derived using the formula for gyro rotation.

But hmm, now I'm confused. Are you saying that  the LRG gives different  kinds of outputs for ether rotation and gyro rotation? In other words, can you differentiate between ether rotation and gyro rotation with the LRG? or do both simply produce a beat frequency and there's no way to distinguish based on the beat frequency whether it's caused by gyro rotation or ether rotation?

I must also admit some confusion on the Coriolis Effect. You indicate that if the LRG measures/detects the Coriolis Effect, then the earth is stationary.
However, as best as I can tell, Coriolis Effect is specific to a situation where the frame of reference is rotating with respect to an inertial frame.

So I'm confused why you say that the earth is stationary if the Coriolis effect is measured/detected.

Do I have any of this right, or am I hopelessly confused?

Thanks!

Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2019, 07:24:48 PM »
However, there are two different formulas you can use to convert that beat frequency to a rotation: One formula for Coriolis Effect, and the other for Sagnac Effect.

Only the beat frequency for the CORIOLIS EFFECT has been calculated, as all the scientists involved with the RLGs have assumed that the this formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT equation:

dt = 4AΩ/c2

However, this the true/correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula:



One is for calculating the rotation of the ether rotation, the other is for calculating gyro rotation. (I'm assuming that earth rotation and gyro rotation are the same from the perspective of the gyro.)

No.

dt = 4AΩ/c2

This formula is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula. It calculates BOTH the ether drift or the physical deflection of the light beams in case the Earth is rotating around its own axis. If the global SAGNAC EFFECT is missing, then the formula calculates only the ether drift effect.

The global SAGNAC EFFECT formula registers ROTATION: an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams. If an interferometer does rotate, the SAGNAC EFFECT will be registered at once.

Using the wrong formula would give a calculated rate of rotation that was incorrect.

At the latitude of the MGX experiment, the SAGNAC EFFECT is some 21,000 times greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT for the same interferometer.

The ~15 degrees per hour is not the actual rate of rotation of the ether because it was derived using the formula for gyro rotation.

It is the actual ether drift rate since this calculation was obtained from the CORIOLIS EFFECT equation, and the interferometer did not register/record the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Are you saying that  the LRG gives different  kinds of outputs for ether rotation and gyro rotation? In other words, can you differentiate between ether rotation and gyro rotation with the LRG? or do both simply produce a beat frequency and there's no way to distinguish based on the beat frequency whether it's caused by gyro rotation or ether rotation?

Gyro rotation (SAGNAC EFFECT) is thousands of times greater than the ether rotation/RE CORIOLIS EFFECT: one is proportional to the RADIUS OF THE EARTH, the other to the AREA OF THE INTERFEROMETER.

The beat frequency is derived from the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, as such it measures the ether drift.

At the present time, no one has derived the beat frequency in terms of the true SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

You indicate that if the LRG measures/detects the Coriolis Effect, then the earth is stationary.
However, as best as I can tell, Coriolis Effect is specific to a situation where the frame of reference is rotating with respect to an inertial frame.


It is stationary if the interferometer measures only the CORIOLIS EFFECT, but not the SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is where Mach's principle comes into play

Any frames of reference or inertial frames no longer matter, if the interferometer registers ONLY the CORIOLIS EFFECT, but not the SAGNAC EFFECT.

Youtube flat earthers (and the UAFE) are helpless in any debate involving RLGs: once the RE claim that the formula used by Michelson and Gale is the SAGNAC EFFECT phase difference, it is all over.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2019, 07:28:36 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2019, 07:43:59 PM »
sandokhan,

Usually I can grasp things, but I am definitely having difficulty with this one!

But  maybe this line of reasoning will help me understand:

If I had a 3-Axis LRG unit, I guess you're saying that it would be giving an essentially constant beat frequency which equated to a rotational rate around an axis.

Do I have that much right?

If so, what generally is the orientation of this axis of rotational signal across the surface of the earth?

Is it pointing up on the north pole, horizontal at the equator, and down at the ice wall/edge?

Thank you.

Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2019, 08:04:28 PM »
If I had a 3-Axis LRG unit, I guess you're saying that it would be giving an essentially constant beat frequency which equated to a rotational rate around an axis.

No.

The beat frequency you'd obtain would be based on the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

This CORIOLIS EFFECT could be due to one of two factors: either the rotation of the ether drift, or the physical effect of Earth's rotation upon the light beams.

Now, since the ring laser gyroscope did not register/record the SAGNAC EFFECT, you only have one option left: the RLG registered the ether drift effect upon the gyro, exactly what happened in the video.

Since the RE claim that the formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT phase difference, the youtube flat earthers have no chance at all in a debate, exactly what happened in the documentary. If the FE will complain that the equation is not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, the RE will smile and state: then show us the correct formula.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2019, 08:22:04 PM »
So if I understand correctly, the single axis LRG produces a beat frequency due to the drift of the ether.

Does the angle of the gyro matter? In other words, whether you have the sensitive axis of the gyro pointing up, north, west, east, etc. Does that affect the frequency of the beat frequency?

Or is it the same for any orientation of the gyro?

Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2019, 08:32:17 PM »
Here is an experiment using the interferometer pointing up: the same CORIOLIS EFFECT formula was used.

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

What still needs to be derived is the GLOBAL SAGNAC beat frequency formula for the ring laser gyroscope, a task which is more difficult than the derivation of the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2019, 09:01:01 PM »
Here is an experiment using the interferometer pointing up: the same CORIOLIS EFFECT formula was used.

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

What still needs to be derived is the GLOBAL SAGNAC beat frequency formula for the ring laser gyroscope, a task which is more difficult than the derivation of the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

That's a really cool experiment. Thanks!

In fact, I would definitely like to try it when I have a budget to get a spool of fiber optic and the like.

So that article seems to indicate that the rotation being measured does have an orientation. He described it as being aligned with a globe earth's orientation.

But on a flat earth, how would the orientation be?

vertical in the center, horizontal at equator, and vertical but opposite direction around the edge?

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #11 on: March 08, 2019, 02:34:54 PM »
What experimental evidence shows that the Coriolis effect affects light? Not evidence that shows the apparent path of light, but that it actually physically moves light. From a non-rotating perspective the light follows a straight path. It is only observed to appear to curve in a rotating frame of reference. So, how is that even related to a gyro?

BobLawBlah.

Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2019, 03:23:31 PM »
What experimental evidence shows that the Coriolis effect affects light?

Each and every Sagnac interferometer in use since 1913.

Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for light beams:

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

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

None other than Dr. Ludwik Silberstein derived the very same CORIOLIS formula:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf

https://books.google.ro/books?id=8c_mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=malykin+silberstein+coriolis&source=bl&ots=JrMqF2vmto&sig=xCnMB4hL_J_ESg9Xdfhye1ahVjA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE0ZDWxeXeAhXwkYsKHYxwBMYQ6AEwCXoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=malykin%20silberstein%20coriolis&f=false

Silberstein (798, 799) suggested an explanation for the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of the effect of the Coriolis force on the counterpropagating waves.

In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published another paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503

So, how is that even related to a gyro?

The formula for the gyro is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for light beams.

Here is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula for ring laser gyroscopes:

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

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #13 on: March 08, 2019, 04:26:15 PM »
The paper you quote from Malykin literally states that Silberstein made erroneous statements. Stop cherry picking evidence. Read the whole thing.

This entry you quote is literally under a section titled "Incorrect explanations of the Sagnac Effect" - Section 2.1.4

Why am I the only one pointing this out???

In fact when I googled Silberstein myself, I found numerous sources stating that he made numerous mistakes and assumptions about a lot of different topics.
BobLawBlah.

Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #14 on: March 08, 2019, 04:53:56 PM »
You see, you have to be an expert on the Sagnac effect in order to understand all of the subtleties, to have access to references which will explain all of your questions.

G. Malykin's treatise has over 300 references, and yet, it missed one of the most important ones, a paper published by Dr. Silberstein in 1922.

In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645

This paper explains the issue raised by Malykin, but evidently missed by him.

Moreover, it is Malykin who makes a tremendous error in comparing the Sagnac effect with the effect predicted by special relativity.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time to recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

to = t'γ

where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2 = 1 + v2/2c2 + O(v/c)4...

to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)


dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)

dtR = relativity time ratio



Now, to - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c

dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)


dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)


dtS = Sagnac ratio


dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)

When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio
reduces to 2c/v.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3803
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Bob and Jeran's responses to the Behind the Curve documentary
« Reply #15 on: March 08, 2019, 08:39:16 PM »
What experimental evidence shows that the Coriolis effect affects light?

Each and every Sagnac interferometer in use since 1913.

Here is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for light beams:

Spinning Earth and its Coriolis effect on the circuital light beams

http://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071
If you read the article, you will notice that the author only proposes an experiment.  There is no mention that the experiment was ever performed or any results recorded.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.