Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #80 on: November 06, 2019, 07:15:21 PM »
They only register the Coriolis effect, which is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

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

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


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

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

Markus G. Kuhn
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #81 on: November 06, 2019, 10:01:15 PM »
[...]
This paper just says they are the same thing? So is this 'Coriolis force' on a RLG just the same as the Sagnac effec? That's what this paper says #confused
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #82 on: November 06, 2019, 10:16:07 PM »
You are witnessing the damage done by Albert Michelson when he claimed that the formula published in 1925 was actually describing the Sagnac effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #83 on: November 07, 2019, 11:07:58 PM »
You are witnessing the damage done by Albert Michelson when he claimed that the formula published in 1925 was actually describing the Sagnac effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stokes' theorem gives you two equations for the same thing. Your two integrals are by definition the same thing if you're using Stokes' theorem.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #84 on: November 08, 2019, 02:30:02 PM »
Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

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

Formula:



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

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

Formula:


Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #85 on: November 08, 2019, 04:26:55 PM »
In fact, this distance and size does not check out with the radiation spectrum the sun emits (it suggests a certain minimal temperature, which we'd probably feel a lot more then we do if it was this near), and by checking visually (just looking at the sun with dark sunglasses) one can only figure out the apparent size, which is just the relation between the distance and the diameter of the sun, not actually a numerical value for one or the other.
So, yes, the figures in the wiki are very, very strange speculation and are basically the same as saying "I think I have reason to believe that the figures found on wikipedia don't represent reality, but I do not have any idea what they should be instead."
However, one could try to triangulate the sun's distance by having two people at a southern and a northern location face in the same direction and write down the sun's apparent location relative to their field of view, for example relative to the center of their vision. Then, you actually have the data to "draw" a triangle with the two people's distance as a base that has two lines attached with an angle corresponding to the position in the two people's field of view. If you have that, you can measure how far away the pointy end of the triangle aka the sun actually is.
If you do that, you'll most likely find out that the sun is so far away that you have problems getting a reliable distance because your measuring errors will matter too much. With that said, figuring that out will still give you a minimal distance. So, for example, you'll find that the sun is somewhere between infinitely far away (= you go two times the exact same angle) and only very far away (= you take one time the angle you got minus your estimated measuring error and one time the angle plus you got plus your estimated measuring error).
If you get some extra equipment to refine that you'll actually be able to confirm the wikis data if it is correct (against the odds) or get the lower end of your results range (which depends on your measuring error) high enough to proof that the wikis distance is too low.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #86 on: November 09, 2019, 03:39:27 AM »
Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

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

Formula:



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

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

Formula:



I'm glad we agree
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in