swansont

Moderators
  • Content Count

    41795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by swansont

  1. swansont

    Ether wave production

    Is it your contention that no physics has been done in the last 80-90 years to render this quotation moot?
  2. No. Tidal forces are differences in the force due to distance between two points feeling the force. dF/dr. Since gravity drops off as 1/r^2 (nominally), the tidal forces drop off as 1/r^3, i.e. faster than the force. Nothing in the discussion is about what goes on inside a BH. We can measure what the mass of the BH is because we can see how it gravitationally affects masses that are outside the event horizon.
  3. swansont

    Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula

    I didn't ask you about Coriolis (yet). I asked you to derive a Sagnac equation for a system that does not enclose an area, since it is your contention that this is not required. From where does the phase difference arise? Stop it with this nonsense. The schematic clearly shows a circle, which has an area. The description clearly models them as circles. You don't need two loops to do a Sagnac measurement. This is irrelevant. F1 and F2 are the loops to which he refers. They enclose an area. Then it should be no problem to derive an expression for one. These devices are not magic. Their use is to clean up polarization issues and increase sensitivity. See sec 2.3 (page 11) (emphasis added) "Polarization scrambling is a well-known noise source in fiber-optic gyros. Birefringent polarization-holding fibers can be used to decouple the twostates of polarization and hence improve the sensitivity.8,9 In the phase- conjugate fiber-optic gyro, which we are studying, a polarization-preserving phase conjugator can be used to restore severely scrambled waves to their origi-nal state of polarization. This eliminates the noise due to polarization scrambling."
  4. Not without specific predictions and ways to test it. You need the math to make the predictions and experimental confirmation to back up any claims.
  5. swansont

    Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula

    Yes. I quoted from it. Do you recall that? How do you have radii, without having circles, which mean there is an enclosed area? From the paper: Light from a laser is split by beamsplitter BS into two fibers Fl and F2. Fibers F1 and F2 are coiled such that light travels clockwise in Fl and counterclockwise in F2. ... R1,2 and L1,2 are the lengths and radii of the fiber loops Coiled. Loops. Radii. Plus there's the drawing, showing the two coiled sections. Derive it for a setup that does not enclose an area.
  6. Anything you have proposed that is new lacks the kind of detail needed to confirm it. Gravitational and EM field fluctuations moving at c is already part of mainstream physics.
  7. The latter two are by Schwarzschild. How could they possibly be examples of what other people allegedly write? And the first one doesn’t address the issue I raised.
  8. Other people do physics and have added to the theory of GR. I wasn't aware that all this (the interpretations and ramifications) was chalked up to Schwarzschild by anyone. I just thought they referenced him as the person who did the original math. Do you have examples of anyone who says what you claim?
  9. swansont

    Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula

    Yoiu said L was the length of the entire fiber. I showed a direct quote that says it's the length of the fiber in the loop So is it your contention that L1 and L2 are not circular, and there is no area enclosed by them? I mean, it seems obvious that they are. I don't know how to convince you otherwise. The author refers to them as "loops". Do you understand what a "loop" is? Yes. It is. But you said the other equation is what he published ("Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh"), and it's not. That was my objection. That assumes the rotation is around the center of the loop. Otherwise it makes no sense. Certainly not in the context of your earlier response, which was not referencing the same geometry of interferometer as Dr Yeh's But you didn't say the formula was easily derived, you said it was "Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh" and I had difficulty finding it, because, well, it's not the exact formula. It's derived, and would only work under a specific case that both loops were rotating at the same speed around a common center. Otherwise the V's are meaningless. You can get Sagnac in free space, and get it with neutrons, so how is it an electromagnetic interaction?
  10. ! Moderator Note OK. Discussion here is suspended until that thread reaches a satisfactory conclusion
  11. swansont

    Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula

    It’s the Office of Naval Research (ONR), not US Naval Research Office, and the journal is called “Optics Letters”, not “Journal of Optics Letters” Please at least get that detail right
  12. swansont

    Assange! Free at last!

    The law is supposed to protect them from repercussions. Absurd or not (and your scenario itself is quite absurd) it is still a fact. That is what a whistleblower is, in terms of government employees. If you give the information to a journalist, you are not whistle-blowing. It’s something else.
  13. swansont

    Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula

    In a word, no. “R1,2 and L1,2 are the lengths and radii of the fiber loops” (emphasis added) Yes, they are specified quite clearly, which contradicts your assertion. And they have to form a loop. This is what I asked about. It is not where you said it was. And the effect depends on the area of those loops.
  14. swansont

    Rotational motion

    Which is why this former teacher suggested it as the first step.
  15. If c weren’t invariant, the speed of light that was transmitted would be different than the light that was reflected, giving rise to a phase difference. Which was not observed.
  16. swansont

    Global/Generalized Sagnac Effect Formula

    Loops have an area RL gives an area L = 2*pi*R*n where n is the number of loops RL = 2*Pi*R^2*n pi*R^2 is the area of a circle. Where does this equation show up in the paper? Page and equation number, please. What is the velocity referring to? Sagnac depends on rotation.
  17. No, that's not what I said. Not really even close. It's off-topic if you do it in a mainstream science thread. That does not preclude you from starting a thread criticizing a mainstream theory — you can do that in speculations, as long as you live up to the expectations of rigor we have. And you've brought up such an issue in speculations, so presumably you already knew this. I don't think the rules are that hard to parse, especially for anyone presenting themselves as having some level of expertise in GR and quantum physics. It's not unreasonable to expect such a person to follow them. Again, you have done a poor job of reading the green. The restraint you showed is truly amazing.
  18. swansont

    Assange! Free at last!

    Whistle-blowing, at least for US government people, has a specific meaning. It is reporting behavior to the proper government authority. You are then protected from retaliation for having brought illegal behavior to light. From that standpoint, none of this was whistle-blowing. It was stealing and leaking classified information. That is correcting/clarifying terminology, not making a value judgement about whether it was the right thing to do, or whether the whistleblower system works properly (IMO it doesn't)
  19. swansont

    Assange! Free at last!

    The charges predate his request for asylum. They did not "appear from nowhere" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/11681502/Why-is-Julian-Assange-still-inside-the-embassy-of-Ecuador.html
  20. Most stars we see are less than 1 solar mass, so it's an even bigger number than that, assuming the mass gobbled up was stars that belonged to the same distribution. ! Moderator Note When you nitpick and miss, you just come across as being a jerk ("more certainty" was the phrase, which is not the same as "claiming certainty") ! Moderator Note The use of GR as the prevailing mainstream theory is quite correct, and in accordance with the forum rules. You know what the staff is tiring of? All of this sniping. Knock it off.
  21. I was mainly posting for others' benefit. In any even I think the OP's position is about propagation speed, rather than deviating from a 1/r^2 (for gravity and electrostatics) at some distance. One problem with the propagation speed scenario described when applied to gravity is that you can't just make mass appear in a region that has no gravity, while you can do this for electric and magnetic fields. We have evidence of changes in gravity propagating at c, though, as has already been pointed out: gravitational waves (also the Hulse and Taylor pulsar, though that's indirect evidence)
  22. In standard physics this would happen if e.g. you ionized an atom. Beforehand it's neutral and there would be no electric field, but afterward you would have an electric dipole. But the electric field would still be zero for distances greater than ct. The propagation of the field would occur in accordance to solutions of Maxwell's equations, where the propagation speed is c. awaterpon's solution may have different details, but the concept is firmly ensconced in classical physics, and it's been there for ~150 years.
  23. Glass reflects light, with the reflectivity depending on a ratio involving the indicies of refraction, so that has some applicability The mirror part is usually a conductor, so it's conduction band electrons. No atomic excitations, though
  24. Nowhere in that explanation does it say that there are atomic excitations. There's a reason for that. Yes, the classical explanation is that the electrons radiate light. Excitation can only occur for specific wavelengths. It can't be responsible for broadband responses. There would be a difference if the speed of light depended on the motion of the source (where any reflection behaves as a source), or motion through an aether.
  25. swansont

    Banned/Suspended Users

    Z10 has been banned after spending some time in the moderation queue, with no improvement in post quality.