Sagnac and the earth's orbit.

[Pete]

Nope, the correction is not used for synchronization.

It's not used for synchronization, it's required because of the synchronization method.

It is about the change in the distance light travels because of motion in the loop.

Not quite. Directly, it is about the measured signal propagation time. Time measurements are obviously affected by how you set up your clocks.

The distance measurements are derived from the signal propogation measurements.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Wrong.

I'm calling it how I see it.

I know for a fact my twins contradiction refutes SR.

And some people know for a fact they've been kidnapped by aliens. Or that Jesus speaks to them.

If you're so sure put your money and maths where your mouth is. Take up my offer, along with putting 1000 of whatever your local currency on the table. I'll do likewise. Then you submit your work. You claim you know and have complete confidence but why can't you back that up by submitting to a journal? What is your excuse? It's obviously not a lack of time. If you don't want fame submit via a pseudonym. If you don't want the money nominate a charity who'll get the money instead. Likewise for the inevitable Nobel Prize you'd get, give the money away and shun publicity. The guy who solved a Millennium Prize has.

You have the time, you claim you have the results, you claim you have the conviction. So what's your excuse?

 

[Jack_]

It's not used for synchronization, it's required because of the synchronization method.


Not quite. Directly, it is about the measured signal propagation time. Time measurements are obviously affected by how you set up your clocks.

The distance measurements are derived from the signal propogation measurements.

If you think the reason the time is different is because of the clocks are not synched, then there is no point in talking anymore.

That is not what sagnac is all about.

It is about the motion of the rotating object moving through the loop with a constant speed of light.

This changes the distance light has to travel to the receiver.

Therefore, the light path is not from the emission pont in the frame to the receiver because the receiver moves. So the time will be d/c(+-)v depending on the direction.

This about light path distance and not about clock synchronization.

 

[Jack_]

I'm calling it how I see it.

And some people know for a fact they've been kidnapped by aliens. Or that Jesus speaks to them.

If you're so sure put your money and maths where your mouth is. Take up my offer, along with putting 1000 of whatever your local currency on the table. I'll do likewise. Then you submit your work. You claim you know and have complete confidence but why can't you back that up by submitting to a journal? What is your excuse? It's obviously not a lack of time. If you don't want fame submit via a pseudonym. If you don't want the money nominate a charity who'll get the money instead. Likewise for the inevitable Nobel Prize you'd get, give the money away and shun publicity. The guy who solved a Millennium Prize has.

You have the time, you claim you have the results, you claim you have the conviction. So what's your excuse?

Looks like you are simply going to remain on the sidelines waving the white flag.
:truce:

 

[rpenner]

Vindication. More Sagnac math.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm

 

[Pete]

If you think the reason the time is different is because of the clocks are not synched, then there is no point in talking anymore.

Focus on the measurements.
Don't you agree that if the clocks are not synched, the time measurements will be different?
Don't you agree that if we synchronize our hypothetical local positioning system transmitter clocks with each other using Einstein synchronization that no Sagnac correction is required in the receivers?

This about light path distance and not about clock synchronization.

In SR, light path distance and clock synchronization are very tightly related.
And the facts that the GPS includes corrections for Earth rotation Sagnac effect, but not orbital motion, motion about the galaxy, or galactic motion are all strong indicators that SR gives good results.

 

[Jack_]

Vindication. More Sagnac math.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm

I am convinced.

Where is the sagnac effect for the earth's orbit?

 

[Jack_]

Focus on the measurements.
Don't you agree that if the clocks are not synched, the time measurements will be different?
Don't you agree that if we synchronize our hypothetical local positioning system transmitter clocks with each other using Einstein synchronization that no Sagnac correction is required in the receivers?


In SR, light path distance and clock synchronization are very tightly related.
And the facts that the GPS includes corrections for Earth rotation Sagnac effect, but not orbital motion, motion about the galaxy, or galactic motion are all strong indicators that SR gives good results.

Sagnac is not a clock issue period. It is a light travel issue.

You cannot invoke clock sync issues within the same frame or you invalidate SR.

Do some research.

SR claims the light path is A to B period.

In sagnac, that is false.

 

[Pete]

Jack, do you agree that the measurement of light travel distance depends directly on the measurement of time at two different locations?

 

[Jack_]

Jack, do you agree that the measurement of light travel distance depends directly on the measurement of time at two different locations?

Yes, this could be true, but they are synched or GPS does not work.

Now think about this.

This whole thing has me stumped more than anything.

The earth is rotating at 1000 mph. This shows up in GPS as c+v and c-v as you would expect with Sagnac.

All that is fine.

When the satellite emits at c, the earth rotates the receiver at v and so a correction is needed.

This is all OK.

Now, the earth is revolving around the sun at 67000 mph by distant star aberration and the requirments of Keplerian oribits or the earth would fall into the sun.


Let's say the unit is at the equator and the satellite is low on the horizon in the east at noon.

That means the unit is traveling at the orbital speed of the earth at 67,000 MPH.

The satellite emits at one speed c in space. While the light travels through space toward the unit at c, the unit moves with the earth at 67,000 MPH. The unit cuts the distance that the light must travel.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS.

I cannot figure this out.

Yet, this same logic applies and works with the earth's rotation.


Now, one could argue Ritz's theory for the revolution.

But that is violated by the earth's rotational sagnac.

So, that does not work.

Then, one could claim the earth is at rest except for its rotation. But that has been refuted by many experiments in the past and distant star light aberration.


There is something that is badly wrong here.

 

[Pete]

Yes, this could be true, but they are synched or GPS does not work.

Do you agree that if we synchronize our hypothetical local positioning system transmitter clocks with each other using Einstein synchronization, that no Sagnac correction is required in the receivers?

Eg set up three ground-based positioning-system transmitters in a triangle near the Equator.
You walk around in the triangle with a receiver.
If the transmitter clocks use Einstein synchronisation (rightly or wrongly), what corrections (if any) does your receiver need to make to get an accurate fix?

 

[Jack_]

Vindication. More Sagnac math.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm

Let's do some more.

The GPS satellite emits its message with its time and position in the rotating earth frame.

SR instructs us to believe the light path is from the light emission point in the frame to the receiver in the frame.

So, the satellite beams to the hand held unit the correct light emission point in the frame of the hand held unit.

Yet, by a sagnac correction, this is not the correct light path.

Therefore, SR fails.

 

[Pete]

Let's do some more.

The GPS satellite emits its message with its time and position in the rotating earth frame.

No, the GPS satellites emit their time in the inertial earth frame, and their position in the rotating frame.
SR tells us that this means that a Sagnac effect correction is required in the receivers.

Have you thought through the local area scenario with fixed ground-based transmitters using Einstein synchronisation?
What corrections would the receiver need to apply?

 

[Jack_]

No, the GPS satellites emit their time in the inertial earth frame, and their position in the rotating frame.
SR tells us that this means that a Sagnac effect correction is required in the receivers.

Have you thought through the local area scenario with fixed ground-based transmitters using Einstein synchronisation?
What corrections would the receiver need to apply?

There is but one time in the GPS system. All the clocks are moving.

You are implying the time is therefore in some non-rotating time and thus the moving clocks on the earth must be out of sync. This is false.

The reason the sangac correction is because to receiver is moving toward or away from the light pulse.

This is generic sagnac.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm


The same should apply to the earth's orbit. it does not.

 

[Pete]

Jack, you're ignoring questions again.

Have you thought through the local area scenario with fixed ground-based transmitters using Einstein synchronisation?
What corrections would the receiver need to apply?

 

[Jack_]

Jack, you're ignoring questions again.

Have you thought through the local area scenario with fixed ground-based transmitters using Einstein synchronisation?
What corrections would the receiver need to apply?

The clocks will not sync. A sagnac correction will be needed because Einstein's clock sync method requires the light path to equal the ditance between the points.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/

This paper indicates linear sagnac is also applicable.

As such, Einsteins' clock sync method is never viable.

Is that what you meant?

Hey you are not answering my questions.

 

[Pete]

The clocks will not sync. A sagnac correction will be needed because Einstein's clock sync method requires the light path to equal the distance between the points.

As such, Einsteins' clock sync method is never viable.

Come on Jack, explore this with me.
What will be the effect at the receiver if Einstein synchronization is used for the transmitter clocks anyway?
How would the receiver correct for that synchronization 'failure'?
How does that compare to the Sagnac effect correction?

 

[Jack_]

Come on Jack, explore this with me.
What will be the effect at the receiver if Einstein synchronization is used for the transmitter clocks anyway?
How would the receiver correct for that synchronization 'failure'?
How does that compare to the Sagnac effect correction?

I am exploring it.

You cannot do the clock sync under sagnac conditions without a correction to the light path length.

For the clock sync, AB = BA and that is false under sagnac conditions.

 

[Pete]

You can certainly do it. The question is whether the clocks are actually synchronized or not, and more importantly what the effect is at the receiver.

So, if there is a difference in the transmitter clocks due to the synchronisation method, what correction does the receiver have to make?

You will find that if the area covered is small enough that it can be consider to be flat, then the correction required to compensate for the synchronization offset is exactly the opposite of the Sagnac correction.

 

[Jack_]

You can certainly do it. The question is whether the clocks are actually synchronized or not, and more importantly what the effect is at the receiver.

So, if there is a difference in the transmitter clocks due to the synchronisation method, what correction does the receiver have to make?

You will find that if the area covered is small enough that it can be consider to be flat, then the correction required to compensate for the synchronization offset is exactly the opposite of the Sagnac correction.

You are one of these area folks.

That is not what sagnac is all about. It is about the path lengths of light and the motion of the receiver.

I will derive it for you.

Here is how it is derived.


In time t, light moves ct.
It must move the circumference of the circle plus the distance the receiver moved on the loop in time t.

Thus,

ct1 = 2πr + vt1.

t1 = 2πr/(c-v)

For the other direction, light must move the circumference of the circle plus the distance the receiver moved on the loop in time t.

Thus,

ct2 = 2πr - vt2.

t2 = 2πr/(c+v)

Now let's find the sagnac correction.

t1 - r2 = ∆t = 2πr/(c-v) - 2πr/(c+v) = 2πr (1/(c-v) - 1/(c+v) ) = 2πr ((c+v)/(c²-v²) - (c-v)/(c²-v²) )

∆t = 4πrv/(c²-v²)

Now, using angular velocity of ω = v/r

and A = πr², we find πrv = Aω

Hence, in another format,

∆t = 4Aω/(c²-v²).

So, it is not about coordinate changes, acceleration or angular velocity or areas.

It is about the path length being the circumference of the circle plus the change in the position of the receiver on that circumference.