Jump to content

sandokhan

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-8 Poor

About sandokhan

  • Rank
    Meson

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It cannot be any poorer than Michelson's, who derived the WRONG equation (Coriolis effect) while claiming all the while it was the Sagnac effect formula. It cannot be any poorer than Einstein's, who made this statement in 1905: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations” However, those are the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ equations, NOT the original J.C. MAXWELL equations which are invariant under galilean transformations. Dr. A.G. Kelly discovered the humongous fudging of the data in the Hafele-Keating experiment: http:
  2. That article is available elsewhere for full reading. It is also discussed in several other works on the subject. It is fundamental in understanding the subject of the first part of your message. Here is Carl Ockert's analysis of the Fizeau experiment: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968AmJPh..36..158O http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969AmJPh..37..335O
  3. You haven't done your homework on this one. Sagnac Effect, E.J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics, April 1967 "The search for a physically meaningfull transformation is not aided in any way whatever by the principle of general space-time covariance, nor is it true that the space-time theory of gravitation plays any direct role in establishing physically correct transformations." The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect. COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Ke
  4. Fig 11 refers to the Selecting Proper PCMs, NOT to Section 3, entitled Phase Conjugate Sagnac Experiment. In section 3, we have this caption: This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path. Second, it gives us important implications: The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ where v is the speed of the moving arc segment AB (where R is the radius of the circular motion, Ω is the rotational rate).If we increase the radius of the circular motion as
  5. Try again. Figure 11 refers to the section called Selecting proper PCMs. Figures 5 and 6 refer to the phase conjugate single segment of light Sagnac experiment. You have an OPEN LOOP. You cannot get to point B from point A unless the beam of light travels in the OPEN LOOP. Very simple. There is no enclosed area. The beam of light travels ONLY THROUGH THE SINGLE SEGMENT AB. Please read. This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a c
  6. I won't accuse you of trolling this thread. But I have made it clear that this subject (which was referenced while mentioning the potential) requires a different thread. These are open loops. Just like the interferometer created by Professor Yeh. A closed loop? RLGs and the MGX. The phase conjugate mirror has revolutionized the field of optics. Please study this subject a little bit more, starting here: Here is a paper written by Professor Ruyong Wang, in which the Sagnac effect is being derived without an area (what Dr. Wang calls "closed path"):
  7. Surely you can differentiate between an OPEN LOOP and a CLOSED LOOP. The reason I brought up Professor Yeh's first paper is because in that article the OPEN LOOP is displayed right in front of reader. In fact... Starting point A An OPEN LOOP Then we arrive at point B Very clearly and precisely defined. You drew red circles over the two OPEN LOOPS. Now, if you want them to be closed at any cost, you can draw even more circles over them, but the facts won't change. There is no area whatsoever in Professor Yeh's interferometer. 2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2Si
  8. For the Coriolis effect derivation, one needs an area. This was proven in 1921 by Dr. Ludwik Silberstein: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdfThe propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921 For the Sagnac effect derivation, without an area, one needs to employ the use of a phase conjugate mirror. The formulas have already been derived: you have already read Professor Yeh's papers, here is another paper written by Professor Ruyong Wang, in which the Sagnac effect is being derived without an
  9. No. The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect. COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdfpage 8Because many investigators claim that theSagnac effect is made explicable by using theTheory of Special Relativity, a comparison ofthat theory with the actual test results is givenbelow. It will be shown that the effectscalculated under these two theories are of verydifferent orders of magnitude, and thattherefore the Special Theory is of no value
  10. I am going to derive both the SAGNAC EFFECT and the CORIOLIS EFFECT formulas for the MGX interferometer, so that everyone will be able to see at a glance the difference. Point A is located at the detectorPoint B is in the bottom right cornerPoint C is in the upper right cornerPoint D is in the upper left cornerl1 is the upper arm.l2 is the lower arm.Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -A >
  11. Those are open loops, and you know this fact very well. Not closed loops. No area. No enclosure whatsoever. (Open-ended (non-closed) loops: a single segment from end to end) Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning. The use of the phase conjugate mirror means that you have an interferometer where there is no need to actually have an enclosed area. The paths of light in the figure are the two segments of light which connect BS and M with PCM, back and forth. The path of the light is described as follows: Light from a l
  12. No speculation at all. Just a straightforward and direct derivation, using the correct definition of the Sagnac effect. Remember this: the CORIOLIS EFFECT is a physical effect upon the light beams. It is directly proportional to the area of the interferometer. The SAGNAC EFFECT is an electromagnetic effect upon the velocities of the light beams, as such it must be directly proportional to the RADIUS of rotation. A huge difference. As for the subquarks, I should open a new thread, where we will investigate the nature of the potential, which, as R. Feynman stated, is much more imp
  13. Don't you want to know what the potential consists of? What exactly causes the Aharonov-Bohm effect? How do subquarks relate to this very important branch of physics? Perhaps I will open a new thread, in the Speculations section of course, devoted to this subject. For now, please study the topological implications of the Aharonov-Bohm effect: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V07NO1PDF/V07N1BAR.pdf (Dr. Terence W. Barrett, Stanford University) None of my assertions have been contradicted. Do you understand how a phase conjugate mirror functions? There i
  14. Here is more "voodoo" for you: the Maxwell-Lodge effect. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.726.6101&rep=rep1&type=pdfThe Maxwell-Lodge effect: significance of electromagnetic potentials in the classical theoryG. Rousseaux, R. Kofman, and O. MinazzoliThe Aharonov-Bohm effect has been the starting point of the reconsideration of the reality of the vector potential within quantum physics. We argue that the Maxwell-Lodge effect is its classical equivalent: what is the origin of the electromotive force induced in a coil surrounding a (finite) solenoid fed by an a
  15. I made no such suggestion. I did not even mention photons. I mentioned scalar waves, not scalar fields (aether). Are you going to call the Aharonov-Bohm voodoo physics? It is being caused by the POTENTIAL, in the absence of vector fields. Are you going to call Whittaker's proofs as voodoo physics? He proved, mathematically, the existence of scalar/longitudinal waves. Are you going to call Maxwell's original set of equations, which are invariant under galilean transformations voodoo physics? You better not. Now, for those interested in the correct model of the atom, whi
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.