Re: I have questions
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2019, 06:49:52 PM »
I've read first two pages, and i noticed that an author of this article made pretty giant leap from

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

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

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

Where is the aether in all of this???

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

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

Btw, have you noticed how the truth (my thread "If you can beat him, ban him") is unbearable even for the moderator on this forum, as well...What a shame...Absolute, utter shame!!!

Re: I have questions
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2019, 07:23:01 PM »
Had you read the paper you would have discovered an amazing fact: the author derives a formula which features the area, but then, in order to find the lag of the electromagnetic waves, he switches over to the equivalent formula which is proportional to the velocity.

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

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




Re: I have questions
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2019, 08:01:14 PM »
1. Sagnac effect is a real phenomena.
2. Heliocentrists and relativists have to answer this question : If there is no aether what mechanics can explain Sagnac effect? Coriolis force? Of course not...
3. The amount of lagging of electromagnetic waves is consistent with the speed of aether's motion (a.k.a. alleged earth's rotation) for each latitude on the earth. So, either aether rotates around the earth or the earth rotates within motionless aether. In both cases aether exists.
4. Since aether obviously exists why we can't measure orbital motion of the earth? Because there is no orbital motion. But heliocentrists can't have rotation without orbital motion.

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

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


Utter bullshit!

6. So, once again for everyone :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).

Re: I have questions
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2019, 08:33:22 PM »
The ether is no longer a problem for relativists. Practically they are forced to accept its existence, given the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac, nor the solar gravitational potential effect.

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

Re: I have questions
« Reply #24 on: October 14, 2019, 01:45:18 PM »
Michelson Gale : http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Michelson_Gale_1925/Michelson_Gale_1925.pdf
Michelson-Gale Experiment explained :

Re: I have questions
« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2019, 02:01:19 PM »
The video is of no help to the FE/GE.

On the contrary, the author cannot explain the MGX and has to make use of the Airy experiment.

The RE can dismiss the video in no time at all: do you agree that the formula published by Michelson describes the SAGNAC EFFECT?

If the answer of the author is yes, he is helpless.

If the answer is no, then the RE will require the correct formula.


Re: I have questions
« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2019, 04:26:43 PM »
The video is of no help to the FE/GE.

On the contrary, the author cannot explain the MGX and has to make use of the Airy experiment.

The RE can dismiss the video in no time at all: do you agree that the formula published by Michelson describes the SAGNAC EFFECT?

If the answer of the author is yes, he is helpless.

If the answer is no, then the RE will require the correct formula.

1. Of course he measured Sagnac effect (aether confirmed), and he would have been helpless had he tried to interpret his result as the proof in favor of earth's rotation. As Malcolm Bowden pointed out (in the video above) Michelson refrained from any kind of interpretations of the result of his experiment. It speaks volumes, i would say...

2. There is no FE/GE dispute whatsoever...since everyone knows (at least since the time of Aristotles (he lived 2500 years ago)) that the earth is spherically shaped.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I have questions
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2019, 12:37:23 AM »
Michelson-Gale is an inconsistent experiment which showed that the Earth started and stopped its rotation at different times the test was conducted, and was only argued to show the Earth's rotation based on a certain selected groupings and statistical basis.

From The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments by Dr. Paulo N. Correa:

  “ The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes, the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation, but the result was of borderline significance. It could be said that the experiment was inconclusive because it adduced neither proof that there was a shift in the phase of the light beams, nor that there wasn't one. ”
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 01:27:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2019, 05:29:01 AM »
This is the experimental data published by Michelson and Gale in 1925:



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

And ring laser gyroscopes suffer from no such deficiencies.

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

Exactly.

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

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

Unless they can provide the correct SAGNAC formula, it is all over right from the start.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I have questions
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2019, 05:44:53 AM »
That RE statement would be wrong.

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

This invalidates all results. As you see, since the inconsitency shows that other effects are present, those other effects could also be related to the revolution of one rotation or oscillation per 24 hours, whether it be heat or seismic related, or related to some other phenomena. Since we don't know what it is, and we know for a certainty that the experiment is tainted, the experiment is hardly a proof of anything at all. This tainted experiment and all inferences must therefore be thrown out like the trash it is. Inconsistent experiments are always thrown out in emperical science. Not sometimes, always. Inconsistency is evidence that interference and variables have not been properly eliminated and you are not actually testing what you expect to be testing.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 06:07:00 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2019, 06:02:45 AM »
RLGs suffer from no such deficiencies.

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

Will you answer yes?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I have questions
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2019, 06:07:17 AM »
RLGs suffer from no such deficiencies.

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

Will you answer yes?

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

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/911373.pdf --page 51 - 54 shows that the RLG results are inconsistent. A graph on p.54 shows that the results are adopted to a "best fit" algorithm. RLG is not really an experiment, and more like a consumer device. The analogous experiment is Michelson-Gale, which was miniaturized over time.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 06:46:45 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2019, 06:15:59 AM »
The RE will simply dismiss the statistics, which is actually in their favor.

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

Here is the formula published by Michelson:



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

If you answer no, then they will require the correct formula.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6519
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: I have questions
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2019, 07:57:23 AM »
In order to believe the RE interpretation for this, the earth is rotating and giving consistent results. There is another mysterious secondary mechanism modifying those results to a range between where the earth is stopped and where it is rotating at twice it's speed. Due to the range seen, this secondary mechanism is ALSO somehow related to the speed of the Earth's rotation. A secondary mechanism is stopping and then speeding up the earth by 2x and ranges inbetween. How likely is that?

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

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

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

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

As far as whether the right equations are even being used, that is of less importance to me, but I doubt it. It looks a bit different than the sagnac formula at a glance, and it would not be surprising if some of the fundamentals were changed to come up with a statistical basis better to their liking, dishonest manipulators of science that they are.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 08:32:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: I have questions
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2019, 08:27:21 AM »
Your statements are very eloquent and would be applicable to our discussion here if and only if you can disprove the RE's main contention point: the SAGNAC EFFECT formula proves rotation.

The CORIOLIS effect proves rotation which however can be attributed to two different causes: either the Earth is rotating, or the ether drift causes the effect.

NO such ambiguity applies to the SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is most certainly not an irrefragable proof of Earth's rotation

But it is, once you agree with Michelson and Gale that the following formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula:



Sagnac's interferometer proves ROTATION.

Really, inconsistency ends the discussion.

The statistical data works in the RE's favor.

They will remind you yet again that the SAGNAC effect proves rotation.

As far as whether the right equations are even being used, I doubt it. It looks a bit different than the sagnac formula

The formula published by Michelson is ACCEPTED to be the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Everyone accepts this fact, RE, GE, FE.

Sungenis, the foremost geocentrist in the world, accepts this as well.

Let us now apply this formula to the MGX.



The figures for the area of the path, latitude (41deg. 46'), wavelength of the light, speed of light, and the expected fringe shifts are well known.

Expected fringe shift: 0.2364

Measured fringe shift: 0.230 +/- 0.005

Then, the angular velocity of the Earth can be easily computed.


The RE have the precise formula, the other participants in the discussion have NOTHING.


Re: I have questions
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2019, 10:49:39 AM »
SAGNAC = ROTATION
If you accept that Michelson recorded the Sagnac effect, the RE win hands down.
Michelson-Morley interferometer = Sagnac interferometer, so we are back to the same situation.
Once you answer yes, it is all over.
SAGNAC = ROTATION OF AETHER

Your statements are very eloquent and would be applicable to our discussion here if and only if you can disprove the RE's main contention point: the SAGNAC EFFECT formula proves rotation.

The CORIOLIS effect proves rotation which however can be attributed to two different causes: either the Earth is rotating, or the ether drift causes the effect.

NO such ambiguity applies to the SAGNAC EFFECT.

This is most certainly not an irrefragable proof of Earth's rotation

But it is, once you agree with Michelson and Gale that the following formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula:



Sagnac's interferometer proves ROTATION.
Sagnac's interferometer proves ROTATION OF AETHER AROUND MOTIONLESS EARTH!!!

Really, inconsistency ends the discussion.

The statistical data works in the RE's favor.

They will remind you yet again that the SAGNAC effect proves rotation.
I will remind you yet again that the SAGNAC effect proves ROTATION OF AETHER AROUND MOTIONLESS EARTH!!!

As far as whether the right equations are even being used, I doubt it. It looks a bit different than the sagnac formula

The formula published by Michelson is ACCEPTED to be the SAGNAC EFFECT formula.

Everyone accepts this fact, RE, GE, FE.

Sungenis, the foremost geocentrist in the world, accepts this as well.

Let us now apply this formula to the MGX.



The figures for the area of the path, latitude (41deg. 46'), wavelength of the light, speed of light, and the expected fringe shifts are well known.

Expected fringe shift: 0.2364

Measured fringe shift: 0.230 +/- 0.005

Then, the angular velocity of the Earth can be easily computed.
Then, the angular velocity of aether's rotation around motionless earth can be easily computed.

ON TOP OF THAT :

DP: On   the   Luminiferous/Electropon   Ether: Now, more broadly on ether experiments, yes, I have objections to your explanation concerning Michelson-Morley (MMX), Michelson-Gale (MGX), and the  luminiferous/electropon ether (below  just  “ether”. This must be distinguished from the second  flavor of ether in GWW, the “Planck ether” which GWW states cannot be detected by today’s  Interferometers: see GWW1, p. 619.)

RS: It doesn’t matter what the ether is made of. Whatever ether is, it was measured by the 1925 MGX at 98% of what was expected, and that is a fact of empirical science. Thus it detected the daily rotation between Earth and space.  Conversely,   the   1881 – 1930   MMX-type   experiments   and   the   current   sapphire   resonators,  using  the  same  ether  principle  but  in  a  different  mounting  than  MGX,  did  not measure a revolution of the Earth around the sun. Those are the facts.  You choose to answer the MMX-type results by assuming there is no ether and making light  speed  constant.  But  then  you  are  stuck  with  MGX,  which  can’t  be  explained  by  assuming  there  is  no  ether and that light speed is constant. If you will, the 1925 MGX measured the ether at “an insane level of precision,” and it also measured differences in the  speed  of  light  between  the  two  tubes.  That  is  your  dilemma.  If  you  can’t  explain  MGX, then you really have no explanation for MMX.

DP: Basically my position is this: There is no coherent ether model that can make sense of  the  results  from  both  MM  and  Sagnac  interferometers.  Taken as a whole, interferometer experiments demonstrate that  the ether does not exist. Therefore, by itself failure to detect it lends no support for or against a moving Earth or a motionless Earth.

RS: Your reasoning is illogical. Again,  the 1925 MGX  measured the exact amount of ether expected for a relative rotation between Earth and space.  So we know there is an ether, since we must acknowledge that some kind of substance in the vacuum tubes made the light split into interference fringes on the receiver in the MGX experiment.  We also know that the most plausible reason why the 1887 MMX didn’t detect any ether is not because the ether does not exist (since we see the ether in the MGX experiment) but because the Earth isn’t moving against the ether, and that is because the Earth is not revolving around the sun. The logic speaks for itself. Your challenge is not so much with MMX or Sagnac. Your challenge is answering the dilemma you have between the 1887 MMX and the 1925 MGX.

IN ADDITION :

No relativist today would dream of disputing the findings of the Sagnac experiment. Most transoceanic planes, nuclear submarines and communications satellites navigate today with laser ring gyroscopes that utilize the Sagnac effect for position location. The accuracy of the original Sagnac experiment has been estimated at 1:100, but a repetition of the Sagnac experiment with lasers, in 1963, by Macek and Davis, confirmed the result to 1:10^12.

Curiously, many relativists and experimentalists get caught in their ignorance of the Sagnac effect. In 1979, Brillet and Hall reported a null result (absence of frequency shift) with frequency-locked laser beams, one set in a rotating interferometer, and the other kept stationary, and thus concluded  in favour of the isotropy of space. However, not only did they observe a 50 Hz signal at precisely the rotation rate of the turntable employed, but also another more troublesome signal, at 17Hz.

Aspden, who has suggested  that  the null result may well be  the  inevitable consequence of such  frequency-locked  laser  tests because "the frequency of the lasers will adjust to the reorientation of the apparatus exactly to cancel any effect due to motion through the  light-reference frame", commented on the 17Hz frequency shift findings of Brillet and Hall, which had been ignored by them as a "persistent spurious signal":

"Interpreting  the 17 Hz signal as the second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the laser frequency 8.85*1013 Hz, we find the ratio 1.92*10^-13 and, as  this  is 0.131  (v/c)^2, we  find  that v/c  is 1.21*10^-6, giving v as 363 m/sec.   If our theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the west-east speed of  earth  rotation  at Boulder, Colorado.  Being  at  40°N, Boulder  has,  in  fact,  an  earth rotation speed of 355 m/sec." Apparently, Brillet and Hall were conducting a control on the MGP experiment using the Sagnac effect to detect the earth's speed of rotation and with the required resolution, without knowing it!

More recently still, there have been confirmations of  the Sagnac effect for electrons and neutrons. In 1993, Hasselbach and Nicklaus reported a shift of 0.06 fringes using rotating electron beams. The result clearly indicates that atmospheric charges flow faster westward than in the opposite direction.  Werner et al confirmed the Sagnac effect with neutron interferometry. With a swiveling apparatus, they showed that if the interferometer rotated  in  a N-S  plane  the  effect was extinguished, whereas in a W-E plane it was  at a maximum.

Re: I have questions
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2019, 11:52:52 AM »
SAGNAC = ROTATION OF AETHER

For the Sagnac effect to take place, you ALREADY have the ether drift rotating.

What the SAGNAC EFFECT does, is to prove the ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER ITSELF.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect, the slight lateral deflection of the light beams. It can be caused either by the hypothesized rotation of the Earth or by the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth, for a stationary interferometer (MGX/RLGs).

However, the SAGNAC EFFECT is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: you need THE ROTATION of the interferometer itself in order to record the actual Sagnac effect.

Can you understand the difference?

For the Coriolis effect, the interferometer can be stationary, while the ether drift rotates above it, producing the effect.

For the Sagnac effect, the interferometer MUST BE ROTATING in order to register the effect.

Here is the most important part.


If the center of rotation of the interferometer (MGX/RLGs) does not coincide with the geometrical center of the interferometer itself, then for the same rotating interferometer, ONE WILL RECORD BOTH THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

That is, if the Earth is rotating around its own axis, you will register BOTH THE SAGNAC AND THE CORIOLIS EFFECTS.


For the RE/relativists, the ether does exist, no problem at all.


Can everyone understand? The ether envelope around the Earth is stationary and translational (it moves along with the Earth on its orbital motion).

No problem for the MGX/RLGs.


Here we are talking about ROTATION.


More recently still, there have been confirmations of  the Sagnac effect for electrons and neutrons. In 1993, Hasselbach and Nicklaus reported a shift of 0.06 fringes using rotating electron beams. The result clearly indicates that atmospheric charges flow faster westward than in the opposite direction.  Werner et al confirmed the Sagnac effect with neutron interferometry. With a swiveling apparatus, they showed that if the interferometer rotated  in  a N-S  plane  the  effect was extinguished, whereas in a W-E plane it was  at a maximum.

Completely wrong.

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

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

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

Once the area of the interferometer is mentioned you get the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

Re: I have questions
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2019, 01:48:02 PM »
Let me now PROVE that, for an interferometer whose center of rotation does not coincide with its geometrical center, one will record BOTH the Sagnac and the Coriolis effects.

LISA Space Antenna



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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


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

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


Re: I have questions
« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2019, 02:17:49 PM »
SAGNAC = ROTATION OF AETHER

For the Sagnac effect to take place, you ALREADY have the ether drift rotating.

What the SAGNAC EFFECT does, is to prove the ROTATION OF THE INTERFEROMETER ITSELF.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect, the slight lateral deflection of the light beams. It can be caused either by the hypothesized rotation of the Earth or by the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth, for a stationary interferometer (MGX/RLGs).

However, the SAGNAC EFFECT is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams: you need THE ROTATION of the interferometer itself in order to record the actual Sagnac effect.

Can you understand the difference?

For the Coriolis effect, the interferometer can be stationary, while the ether drift rotates above it, producing the effect.

For the Sagnac effect, the interferometer MUST BE ROTATING in order to register the effect.
You are the only person in the world who claims this. I have never heard of a similar example of confusing coriolis force with sagnac effect, especially not in the context of MMX, MGPX and alike sort of experiments...
Then it came to my mind the following question : Sandokhan also claims that the earth is flat, and we all must agree that such a weird claim can't be anything else but the consequence of a gigantic logical and scientific confusion in Sandokhan's mind... So what are the odds that Sandokhan knows what he is talking about in the context of MGPX in which case he is obviously confusing coriolis force with sagnac effect, as well... Should i (or anyone else) be really surprised with such a weird Sandokhan's claims given the fact that he is the only person in the world who implies that all heliocentrists and geocentrists in the whole world are totally wrong regarding their principally the same interpretation of MGPX, and that only he (Sandokhan) knows how to correctly interpret results of that experiment?

Expected fringe shift: 0.2364

Measured fringe shift: 0.230 +/- 0.005

So the 1925 MGX measured the ether at “an insane level of precision...”

How can you justify such an insane level of precision and such an insanely small difference between expected fringe shift and measured fringe shift given the fact that (as you yourself stated) the formula published by Michelson is ACCEPTED to be the SAGNAC EFFECT formula and that everyone accepts this fact, RE, GE, FE?

So, they firstly used sagnac effect formula (not coriolis effect formula) to determine (before conducting experiment) correct value for the expected fring shift, then they conducted experiment and the result of the experiment (measured fringe shift) was practically the same as the expected fringe shift, and you still don't notice any problem with your weird claims???

Here is the most important part.

If the center of rotation of the interferometer (MGX/RLGs) does not coincide with the geometrical center of the interferometer itself, then for the same rotating interferometer, ONE WILL RECORD BOTH THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

That is, if the Earth is rotating around its own axis, you will register BOTH THE SAGNAC AND THE CORIOLIS EFFECTS.

For the RE/relativists, the ether does exist, no problem at all.

Can everyone understand? The ether envelope around the Earth is stationary and translational (it moves along with the Earth on its orbital motion).

No problem for the MGX/RLGs.

Here we are talking about ROTATION.

Here we are talking about ROTATION OF AETHER!

Complete aether dragging can explain the negative outcome of all aether drift experiments (like the Michelson–Morley experiment). However, this theory is considered to be wrong for the following reasons:

    The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.
    The Sagnac effect shows that two rays of light, emanated from the same light source in different directions on a rotating platform, require different times to come back to the light source. However, if the aether is completely dragged by the platform this effect should not occur at all.

Complete aether dragging is inconsistent with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. In this illustration, imagine the stars to be infinitely distant. Aberration occurs when the observer's velocity has a component that is perpendicular to the line traveled by the light incoming from the star. As seen in the animation on the left, the telescope must be tilted before the star will appear in the center of the eyepiece. As seen in the animation of the right, if the aether is dragged in the vicinity of the earth, then the telescope must be pointed directly at the star for the star to appear in the center of the eyepiece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#/media/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

In 1845 George Stokes (1819-1903), objecting to the notion that a massive body such as the Earth could move through the ether without disturbing it, advocated that stellar aberration was caused by the Earth
dragging along all of the ether near its surface as it rotates, which he coined “the etherosphere,” and which theory Michelson “revered above all others” (Loyd Swenson, The Ethereal Ether, p. 24).

In 1849 Stokes suggested that the ether was not dragged by the moving glass plate, but that the ether within the plate was compacted. In his work with light diffraction around opaque bodies and light diffraction in the sky, he showed that the vibration of ether particles is at right angles to the plane of polarization. The same did not hold for crystals, so Stokes reversed Cauchy’s hypothesis, making the elastic properties of ether the same in all materials, but allowing the inertia to be anisotropic. In the end, Stokes’ ether behaves as a rigid solid for high-frequency oscillations of light but as a fluid for the slow moving celestial bodies. In 1867, further experiments forced Stokes to withdraw his theory, (cf., G. G. Stokes, “On the Aberration of Light,” Philosophical Magazine 27, pp. 9-15, 1845; “On Fresnel’s Theory of the Aberration of Light,” Philosophical Magazine 28, pp. 76-81, 1846; “On the Constitution of the Luminiferous Ether Viewed with Reference to the Phenomenon of the Aberration of Light,” Philosophical Magazine 29, pp. 6-10, 1846; “On the Constitution of the Luminiferous Ether,” Philosophical Magazine 32, pp. 343-349, 1848).

A MMX shows that there is no orbital motion of the earth.

B Airy's failure shows that there is no orbital motion of the earth, also.

B MGPX proved beyond reasonable doubt that the aether rotates once per day around the motionless earth.

D Sagnac experiment proved that aether exists.

E An open-loop Sagnac effect proves that there is a rotational motion of an aether around the stationary earth.

F An open-loop Sagnac effect principally can be the consequence of earth's rotation within stationary aether or it can be the result of the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth, however since all interferometry experiments which were designed to detect earth's orbital motion yielded too small fringe shifts (hence "null result"), then there is no way that an open-loop Sagnac effect can be ascribed to the alleged earth's rotational motion, and instead such principally possible (but practically refuted) interpretation, an open-loop Sagnac effect must be assigned to the rotation of an aether around the stationary earth.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 02:23:08 PM by cikljamas »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 858
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: I have questions
« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2019, 02:47:12 PM »
The ether is no longer a problem for relativists. Practically they are forced to accept its existence, given the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac, nor the solar gravitational potential effect.

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

Wait, what?  Are you admitting that GPS satellites exist?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.