Earth's orbital sagnac

[swansont]

1) It is about traversing the path of the loop.

 

2) The hand held unit and the satellite are clearly not on the same rotational loop.

 

3) Finally the hand held unit and the satellite are more likely on the orbital loop than the rotation loop than the rotational loop for the experiment I proposed. If you provide a proof my statement is false, I will show you why you are wrong.

 

So, you issue regarding radius is a red herring since you are the one that injected the sagnac path.

 

Your answer disagrees with experiment — it's wrong. Read that several times, and let it sink in. Mine doesn't. And not just this experiment — mine agrees with all of the Sagnac experiments.

 

The handheld receiver doesn't matter in the GPS Sagnac calculation, because it uses an earth-fixed frame. In the calculation the receiver isn't moving (which is the whole reason there is a Sagnac term). All of the Sagnac is due to the satellites. Their motion is a circular path about the earth, and the parameters of that orbit are the relevant quantities in the Sagnac calculation.

[vuquta]

Your answer disagrees with experiment — it's wrong. Read that several times, and let it sink in. Mine doesn't. And not just this experiment — mine agrees with all of the Sagnac experiments.

 

The handheld receiver doesn't matter in the GPS Sagnac calculation, because it uses an earth-fixed frame. In the calculation the receiver isn't moving (which is the whole reason there is a Sagnac term). All of the Sagnac is due to the satellites. Their motion is a circular path about the earth, and the parameters of that orbit are the relevant quantities in the Sagnac calculation.

 

I realize what I am saying disagrees with the data. It has sunk in. Except I understand the math and therefore, I realize something is wrong.

 

That is why I started this thread. It does not make mathematical sense. I produced that paper that alos saw this. However, that author explained the problem with a local aether frame which I cannot accept without some kind of proof.

 

You are attempting to justify something you cannot mathematically prove. Further, if you let it sink in, the math says of the rotational sagnac exists, then the orbital sagnac should exist.

 

Also, the math says of the orbital sagnac does not exist, then the rotational sagnac should not exist.

 

This is a contradiction.

 

There has to be a correct mathematical explanation.

[swansont]

Saying something is small is not the same thing as saying it does not exist. The Saganac from the orbit about the sun is smaller by the ratio of the angular speeds, which is currently small enough to be in the noise. Therefore it is ignored. Nobody said it was nonexistent.

[vuquta]

Saying something is small is not the same thing as saying it does not exist. The Saganac from the orbit about the sun is smaller by the ratio of the angular speeds, which is currently small enough to be in the noise. Therefore it is ignored. Nobody said it was nonexistent.

 

We have been through this. Angular velocity is not sufficient to decide sagnac.

 

You must use the radius also from the center of the loop which is the sun for the orbital sagnac.

 

Then we use mathpages and get a sagnac 65 times greater than that of the rotational sagnac.

 

I would think you would produice some math for your conclusions.

 

Is this not physics?

[swansont]

We have been through this. Angular velocity is not sufficient to decide sagnac.

 

You must use the radius also from the center of the loop which is the sun for the orbital sagnac.

 

Yes, we have, and no you don't. You use the center of the orbit, and the satellites are not orbiting the sun. Their orbital path does not enclose it. If you would go and derive the equation instead of blindly misapplying it, you might see this.

 

Then we use mathpages and get a sagnac 65 times greater than that of the rotational sagnac.

 

I would think you would produice some math for your conclusions.

 

Is this not physics?

 

The math is already there, and the equation is not going to change. This issue here is conceptual.

 

1) If the satellites were stationary and earth not rotating, with respect to the fixed stars, how many times would they rotate from the point of view of the sun, over the course of a year, i.e. a complete revolution?

 

2) What is the corresponding Sagnac shift from that rotation? Derive this from physical principles instead of using someone else's equation.

 

3) Would this number change if the distance to the sun changed?

[vuquta]

Yes, we have, and no you don't. You use the center of the orbit, and the satellites are not orbiting the sun. Their orbital path does not enclose it. If you would go and derive the equation instead of blindly misapplying it, you might see this.

 

The sagnac is based on the radius of the loop.

 

And yes, the satellites are orbiting the sun. They orbit the earth which is orbiting the sun. My example showed this clearly on how to set this up.

 

To argue the satellites are not orbiting the sun is absurd and not scientific.

 

You must argue the satellites are not in any way on the orbital path. That is false.

 

 

 

 

 

The math is already there, and the equation is not going to change. This issue here is conceptual.

 

1) If the satellites were stationary and earth not rotating, with respect to the fixed stars, how many times would they rotate from the point of view of the sun, over the course of a year, i.e. a complete revolution?

 

2) What is the corresponding Sagnac shift from that rotation? Derive this from physical principles instead of using someone else's equation.

 

3) Would this number change if the distance to the sun changed?

 

Yes, it is conceptual, you argue a satellite is never on the orbital path. That is simply false.

[swansont]

The sagnac is based on the radius of the loop.

 

And yes, the satellites are orbiting the sun. They orbit the earth which is orbiting the sun. My example showed this clearly on how to set this up.

 

To argue the satellites are not orbiting the sun is absurd and not scientific.

 

You must argue the satellites are not in any way on the orbital path. That is false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it is conceptual, you argue a satellite is never on the orbital path. That is simply false.

 

No, my argument (and the way you use the Sagnac equation) is that the relevant area is that enclosed by the orbital path. The orbit is a circle, with the earth at the center. The sun is never inside the circle. The orbital radius of the sun is not relevant.

 

No, can you answer the three questions? That will indicate how well you understand the Sagnac effect.

[vuquta]

No, my argument (and the way you use the Sagnac equation) is that the relevant area is that enclosed by the orbital path. The orbit is a circle, with the earth at the center. The sun is never inside the circle. The orbital radius of the sun is not relevant.

 

No, can you answer the three questions? That will indicate how well you understand the Sagnac effect.

 

You are wrong. You cannot arbitrarily set the center of the orbital sagnac for the sun at the earth's center. I could then set the lab's sagnac center center as the earth's center in kind and end up in a Reductio ad absurdum argument.

 

How can you possibly consider the orbital sagac's center as the earth when in fact it is the sun. You are confusing the earth's rotational center with its orbital center.

 

 

 

OK, here are your questions.

 

The math is already there, and the equation is not going to change. This issue here is conceptual.

 

1) If the satellites were stationary and earth not rotating, with respect to the fixed stars, how many times would they rotate from the point of view of the sun, over the course of a year, i.e. a complete revolution?

 

2) What is the corresponding Sagnac shift from that rotation? Derive this from physical principles instead of using someone else's equation.

 

3) Would this number change if the distance to the sun changed?

 

 

1) What do you mean by they rotate and relative to what?

2) Which rotation? If there is no rotation, then SR will claim there is no sagnac. If there is a rotation, then SR will claim there is no rotational sagnac because any reference frame always measures c. Either way, like with the orbiital and linear sagnac, SR predicts no shift.

3) SR does not care about the radius. Every frame always measures c. Are you refuting this?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You are wrong. You cannot arbitrarily set the center of the orbital sagnac for the sun at the earth's center. I could then set the lab's sagnac center center as the earth's center in kind and end up in a Reductio ad absurdum argument.

 

How can you possibly consider the orbital sagac's center as the earth when in fact it is the sun. You are confusing the earth's rotational center with its orbital center.

How can you possibly consider the orbital Sagnac's center as the sun when it is in fact the center of the galaxy? The sun orbits around the center of the galaxy, you know.

 

(There's a point to be learned from this example.)

[vuquta]

How can you possibly consider the orbital Sagnac's center as the sun when it is in fact the center of the galaxy? The sun orbits around the center of the galaxy, you know.

 

(There's a point to be learned from this example.)

 

Agreed, all but the lab's sagnac and the earth's rotational sagnac is missing.

 

That is the problem.

 

Do you see this or no.

[swansont]

You are wrong. You cannot arbitrarily set the center of the orbital sagnac for the sun at the earth's center. I could then set the lab's sagnac center center as the earth's center in kind and end up in a Reductio ad absurdum argument.

 

How can you possibly consider the orbital sagac's center as the earth when in fact it is the sun. You are confusing the earth's rotational center with its orbital center.

 

 

You really aren't in a position to say what's wrong, given that you don't get the answer that agrees with experiment with your use of the equation. The Sagnac effect depends on the area enclosed by the signal path. How do you think people measure the earth's rotation with a tabletop Sagnac interferometer? They get the right answer, BTW, using the area of the interferometer, and the rotational frequency of the earth's rotation.

 

If you draw a circle that represents the orbit of the satellites, the sun isn't inside of it.

 

 

OK, here are your questions.

 

 

 

 

1) What do you mean by they rotate and relative to what?

2) Which rotation? If there is no rotation, then SR will claim there is no sagnac. If there is a rotation, then SR will claim there is no rotational sagnac because any reference frame always measures c. Either way, like with the orbiital and linear sagnac, SR predicts no shift.

3) SR does not care about the radius. Every frame always measures c. Are you refuting this?

 

Does the sun see the satellites rotate relative to it?

 

Actually, your confusion here indicates we step back: what is the reason that a Sagnac shift occurs?

[vuquta]

You really aren't in a position to say what's wrong, given that you don't get the answer that agrees with experiment with your use of the equation. The Sagnac effect depends on the area enclosed by the signal path. How do you think people measure the earth's rotation with a tabletop Sagnac interferometer? They get the right answer, BTW, using the area of the interferometer, and the rotational frequency of the earth's rotation.

 

If you draw a circle that represents the orbit of the satellites, the sun isn't inside of it.

 

What does this have to do with anything? Does the rotation of the earth have anything to do with the lab sagnac results?

 

 

 

Does the sun see the satellites rotate relative to it?

 

Actually, your confusion here indicates we step back: what is the reason that a Sagnac shift occurs?

 

The Sagnac shift occurs because SR is false. There exists a reference frame in which light is not measured c.

 

Your problem and mine is why this is not universal.

 

Please supply the math for your case.

 

I assure you, you are no where near me in the math credentials. So like I keep saying supply the math to support why the lab sagnac and earth sagnac exists but not the orbital sagnac nor the milky way sagnac.

 

Simply put supply the equations if you are correct and end this.

 

Warning, if you do, I will knock them apart.

[swansont]

What does this have to do with anything? Does the rotation of the earth have anything to do with the lab sagnac results?

 

Labs measure the rotation of the earth with Sagnac interferometers. It strains credulity that you can criticize the science without knowing this.

 

 

 

 

The Sagnac shift occurs because SR is false. There exists a reference frame in which light is not measured c.

 

Do you understand what an inertial reference frame is? And that SR only applies to inertial reference frames? So that Sagnac, present from a rotation, could not possibly refute SR?

 

 

The second sentence is close enough. Because SR does not apply in the rotational frame, light will not be seen to travel at c.

 

Now, if light travels around a circular path of radius r, how much phase can accumulate per rotation of the device?

 

 

 

Your problem and mine is why this is not universal.

 

Please supply the math for your case.

 

I assure you, you are no where near me in the math credentials. So like I keep saying supply the math to support why the lab sagnac and earth sagnac exists but not the orbital sagnac nor the milky way sagnac.

 

Simply put supply the equations if you are correct and end this.

 

Warning, if you do, I will knock them apart.

 

You have already seen the equations; they are not in question. You are misapplying them, as I have repeatedly pointed out, because you do not understand relativity or the Sagnac effect.

 

I assure you, you are nowhere near me in physics credentials. This isn't a math problem, it's a physics problem. Are you interested in learning some physics?

[vuquta]

Labs measure the rotation of the earth with Sagnac interferometers. It strains credulity that you can criticize the science without knowing this.

 

Labs wdo measure the rotation of the earth using sagnac. I did not say there were not examples. Yet, there are others that only measure their specific rotations. Obviously, I was talking about these.

 

Since gyroscopes operate on this principle.

 

Here is a link for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

 

Further, I would think it is obvious I a not criticizing the science. I just want to apply it ro all rotational paths with some center and cannot.

That is the part that is in error.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you understand what an inertial reference frame is? And that SR only applies to inertial reference frames? So that Sagnac, present from a rotation, could not possibly refute SR?

The impact of acceleration on sagac is neglible for the time light takes to hit the ground. I suppose you are now arguing that acceleration is the cause of sagnac.

 

The path and time for light to travel from satellite to ground is almost inertial with very little acceleration.

 

Further, can you show me an inertial frame in this universe as some example, that way I could at least see your point a little.

 

The deviation of the rotational sagnac is so small based on the arc, that it is very close to an inertial frame.

 

Also, while the light travels from the satellite, the earth receiver can move in all kinds of ways based on topography. The arc of the earth for that motion is the least of those deviations.

 

 

 

 

 

The second sentence is close enough. Because SR does not apply in the rotational frame, light will not be seen to travel at c.

 

Now, if light travels around a circular path of radius r, how much phase can accumulate per rotation of the device?

 

Are you claiming if there is an arc of .000000000001 radians for a motion path, light will experience sagnac for that path and not for one that is perfectly linear? That seems odd. Can you prove this odd assertion?

 

The phase accumulation for two way is

(8πAcω/λ)/(c2 – v2).

 

 

 

You have already seen the equations; they are not in question. You are misapplying them, as I have repeatedly pointed out, because you do not understand relativity or the Sagnac effect.

 

I assure you, you are nowhere near me in physics credentials. This isn't a math problem, it's a physics problem. Are you interested in learning some physics?

 

I assure you, you are nowhere near me in math credentials.

 

As such, let's learn physics.

 

Assume your model before of a revolving earth but no rotation. Now, assume light is shot around the orbital path. I know you will agree, sagnac applies.

 

Here are some questions.

 

1) If the earth then rotates, does the orbital sagnac disappear? Does that imply the behavior of light depends on the motion of the light source?

 

Next assume a satellite is fixed with the orbit of the earth but it does not orbit the earth.

 

Assume the satellite is in front of the earth's orbit.

 

2) Will there exist a sagnac correction from the satellite to the earth in this case?

 

 

Now assume this static condition between the earth and the satellite. At one instant the normal rotations of the earth and satellite begin and then at .0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds light is shot from the satellite to the earth.

 

Your contention is that the orbital sagnac disappears.

 

Can I see your math for this model as to why the orbital sagnac disappears?

[swansont]

Labs wdo measure the rotation of the earth using sagnac. I did not say there were not examples. Yet, there are others that only measure their specific rotations. Obviously, I was talking about these.

 

Since gyroscopes operate on this principle.

 

Here is a link for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

 

Further, I would think it is obvious I a not criticizing the science. I just want to apply it ro all rotational paths with some center and cannot.

That is the part that is in error.

 

If it agrees with experiment, how do you conclude that it is in error?

 

 

If you aren't going to answer the questions I posed, then I'm done here.

[vuquta]

If it agrees with experiment, how do you conclude that it is in error?

 

 

If you aren't going to answer the questions I posed, then I'm done here.

 

Which experiment do you mean.

 

Each experiment of sagnac uses a center of the loop for R.

 

It works for the gyros.

 

It works for the earth.

 

You agree it would work on an earth orbital path except because of the rotation, you cancel it.

 

My thing is something is wrong. For some reason, with your physics credentials, you cannot explain it nor can you provide the math to explain why the orbital sagnac is missing.

 

No problem, neither can I.

 

I was hoping to explore ideas since after debating many, you seem pretty good or I would not waste my time.

 

You are also smart enough to know, as long as you are on the orbital path and shoot light, that sagnac will apply but does not.

 

This has been verified by GPS and by a link from the US to Japan.

 

The orbital sagnac does not exist.

 

Neither does the milky way sagnac for the sun and earth.

 

That is even faster if the CMB is correct.

 

So, I am looking at this and trying to reconclile it.

 

It is as if the earth is stationary except for rotation but that makes no sense either.

 

OK, I think we are done.

 

I

[ScottTheSculptor]

Sculptors view of the problem.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3227909&postcount=18

 

no really.

[swansont]

Sculptors view of the problem.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3227909&postcount=18

 

no really.

 

!

Moderator Note

Promoting your own hypothesis in other threads is against the rules

[ScottTheSculptor]

!

Moderator Note

Promoting your own hypothesis in other threads is against the rules

 

 

Apologies.

 

My theory does explain this argument.

 

I will refrain from posting anywhere but in my own defense on my own thread

Edited April 4, 2011 by ScottTheSculptor