On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 5:38:40 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I'm puzzled, after reading again my analysis of the derivation, by this equation:
> ∮ v⋅d x = ∮ ω × x⋅d x = ∮ ω ⋅ x × d x = 2 ∮ ω⋅dA = 2 ω⋅A

Looks to me like an application of Stokes theorem. This section of
the article is a bit confused. It purports to be a relativistic derivation,
but after giving lip service to the Lorentz transformation in the first
few paragraphs, it discards gamma for the low speed approximation.

It seems to me that point of using line integrals would be so that one
could write a generalized formula that is applicable to non-Sagnac
applications such as this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#/media/File:Generalized_Sagnac_effect.gif
or this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#/media/File:Fizeau-Mascart1_retouched.png

For the usual Sagnac setup using a rigid closed loop the derivation
is way overkill. Somebody was showing off.

That happens a lot in Wikipedia.

In article <fdaa16da-2825-4825-85f1-cc4c82d32888n@googlegroups.com>,
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:23:15 AM UTC-3, Mikko wrote:
> > How do you derive (or explain) this formula without relativity?
> > In particular, why there is a c although nothing moves so fast in the
> > device?

> I don´t derive it by myself. I just analyzed what is written at Wikipedia.

> I don't get rid of relativity, the authors at Wiki article did.

The Wikipedia article uses relativity in its derivation.

If one wants to derive the formula without relativity, one must use
something else instead of relativity; otherwise one cannot derive
any formula for the experiment. So, what assumptions one should
use? In particular, what is the speed of light in moving solid matter?

Mikko

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 1:03:35 AM UTC-7, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 5:38:40 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > I'm puzzled, after reading again my analysis of the derivation, by this equation:
> > ∮ v⋅d x = ∮ ω × x⋅d x = ∮ ω ⋅ x × d x = 2 ∮ ω⋅dA = 2 ω⋅A
> Looks to me like an application of Stokes theorem.

It is not Stokes, it is straight :

1. use of the property of triple product property
2, use of the theorem that ∮x × d x=2A
3. all integrals are line integrals

>This section of
> the article is a bit confused. It purports to be a relativistic derivation,
> but after giving lip service to the Lorentz transformation in the first
> few paragraphs, it discards gamma for the low speed approximation.
>

I pointed the crank Richard Hertz to the correct derivation of both the SR and the GR variant of the Sagnac experiment(the Rizzi paper). I also showed him that FOGs, far from disproving SR are actually the most straightforward confirmation of SR (via the relativistic velocity composition). The wiki derivation sucks.

> That happens a lot in Wikipedia.

Yep.

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 14:04:44 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:

> I pointed the crank Richard Hertz to the correct derivation of both the SR and the GR variant of the Sagnac experiment(the Rizzi paper). I also showed him that FOGs, far from disproving SR are actually the most straightforward confirmation of SR

In the meantime in the real world, the real clocks of
real GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks
always did.

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:15:44 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 14:04:44 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
>
> > I pointed the crank Richard Hertz to the correct derivation of both the SR and the GR variant of the Sagnac experiment(the Rizzi paper). I also showed him that FOGs, far from disproving SR are actually the most straightforward confirmation of SR
> In the meantime in the real world, the real clocks of
> real GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks
> always did.

You need to lay off the cheap vodka

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 3:03:35 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> For the usual Sagnac setup using a rigid closed loop the derivation
> is way overkill. Somebody was showing off.
>
> That happens a lot in Wikipedia.

The line integral derivation was a "conflict of interest" contribution by Joseph Avron, who
co-authored a paper on it.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01448

I didn't delete JA's contribution (although I could have, since COI contributions are against
Wikipedia policy) , but I restored a basic derivation (understandable by a larger population of
readers) that had been replaced by JA with his generalized line integral derivation.

JA has co-authored a fair number of papers on various subjects, including some interesting
results on how organisms swim in low Reynolds number environments (a favorite subject
of mine that I've mentioned several times before on this newsgroup).

On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 02:57:32 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:15:44 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 14:04:44 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > > I pointed the crank Richard Hertz to the correct derivation of both the SR and the GR variant of the Sagnac experiment(the Rizzi paper). I also showed him that FOGs, far from disproving SR are actually the most straightforward confirmation of SR
> > In the meantime in the real world, the real clocks of
> > real GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks
> > always did.
> You need to lay off the cheap vodka

See, poor halfbrain: you're just a poor religious
crank and I am one of the best logicians the
humanity ever had. You can't discuss against
me, you can only rave, spit and slander. And
you do.

On 8/21/2021 5:24 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 02:57:32 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:

>> You need to lay off the cheap vodka
>
> I am one of the best logicians the
> humanity ever had.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You've definitely gone beyond cheap vodka and are now into hallucinogens
to state that! You may now join your fellow "geniuses", "kings of
science", "lone gods among devils", "world's experts on storms" at the
NPD and Dunning-Kruger table at the asylum cafeteria. But behave
yourself, otherwise it's back to the rubber room for you.

On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 13:15:06 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/21/2021 5:24 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 02:57:32 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
>
> >> You need to lay off the cheap vodka
> >
> > I am one of the best logicians the
> > humanity ever had.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
>
> You've definitely gone beyond cheap vodka and are now into hallucinogens
> to state that! You may now join your fellow "geniuses", "kings of
> science", "lone gods among devils", "world's experts on storms" at the
> NPD and Dunning-Kruger table at the asylum cafeteria. But behave
> yourself, otherwise it's back to the rubber room for you.

Rave and spit, stupid Mike; you're too stupid for
anything else, after all. Samely as most of your
fellow idiots here.

On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > FOG devices, in solid state form (as pioneered by Siemens by 1979) are today an essential part of monitoring devices for safe flights in any commercial or military plane. Also, exist as backup reference in cruise missiles and have many other applications.
> > >
> > > FOG senses changes in orientation using the Sagnac effect, and is not
> > > related to any derivation from SR or GR, which generated a bitter and long
> > > dispute for decades, since 1909, still unsolved.
>
> > Ahh, the irony
> > Turns out that FOGs CONFIRM special relativity , by being one of the most direct and obvious applications of the RELATIVISTIC
> > velocity composition. You shot yourself in the foot, kapo. Again.
> Say that to Engelhardt (and thanks for reminding me about him). And check his paper again (I put the link a few posts behind this).

I posted the correct relativistic formula here on 18 August. Here is a more readable
version (meaning, properly typeset, not ASCII):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms

The formula for the delay is marked "(*)", the second term in it is what's typically omitted
from the usual approximations. It's a very tiny term but it must be kept in mind
when critiquing the concept of Sagnac delay in principle.

The units of c = 1 are used in that formula for simplicity. Use the usual
substitutions to get the MKS.

In the references [2] and [3] quoted there there is a general formula (**) for
more general metrics. The note I linked above was originally written to
verify that the general formula (**) does indeed reduce to (*) in the case
of a rotating system in the Minkowski space.

BTW, a very highly recommended reference is [1]:

Anandan J. “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic physics” Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
338–346

It was FAPP the first published paper which clearly pointed out that the
source of the delay comes from the discrepancy between the two
helices on the ring worldline (i.e., a cylinder): the worldline of the
light source and the helix of simultaneity.

--
Jan

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 4:35:03 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > FOG devices, in solid state form (as pioneered by Siemens by 1979) are today an essential part of monitoring devices for safe flights in any commercial or military plane. Also, exist as backup reference in cruise missiles and have many other applications.
> > > >
> > > > FOG senses changes in orientation using the Sagnac effect, and is not
> > > > related to any derivation from SR or GR, which generated a bitter and long
> > > > dispute for decades, since 1909, still unsolved.
> >
> > > Ahh, the irony
> > > Turns out that FOGs CONFIRM special relativity , by being one of the most direct and obvious applications of the RELATIVISTIC
> > > velocity composition. You shot yourself in the foot, kapo. Again.
> > Say that to Engelhardt (and thanks for reminding me about him). And check his paper again (I put the link a few posts behind this).
> I posted the correct relativistic formula here on 18 August. Here is a more readable
> version (meaning, properly typeset, not ASCII):
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
>
> The formula for the delay is marked "(*)", the second term in it is what's typically omitted
> from the usual approximations. It's a very tiny term but it must be kept in mind
> when critiquing the concept of Sagnac delay in principle.
>
> The units of c = 1 are used in that formula for simplicity. Use the usual
> substitutions to get the MKS.
>
> In the references [2] and [3] quoted there there is a general formula (**) for
> more general metrics. The note I linked above was originally written to
> verify that the general formula (**) does indeed reduce to (*) in the case
> of a rotating system in the Minkowski space.
>
> BTW, a very highly recommended reference is [1]:
>
> Anandan J. “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic physics” Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
> 338–346
>
> It was FAPP the first published paper which clearly pointed out that the
> source of the delay comes from the discrepancy between the two
> helices on the ring worldline (i.e., a cylinder): the worldline of the
> light source and the helix of simultaneity.

I had been thinking of adapting Anandan to the Wikipedia article. So long
as the *initial* presentation is a low-speed, nonrelativistic derivation
accessible to a wide target audience of, say, high school and first-year
college physics students, I'm OK with introducing more rigorous
presentations in later sections.

My hesitancy at performing the adaptation is that Anandan is a primary
source, and Wikipedia policy discourages editors from using primary
sources unless they have independent verification of the validity and
significance of the work cited.

Usually this validation would be through use of secondary sources that
discuss the primary source and put the primary source into context.

I am by no means any sort of expert in this field, and although I liked
Anandan when I first came across it several years ago, I did not trust
my judgement that this was as good an article as I thought it was.
Thanks for your affirmation of the paper's quality and relevance!

As I stated before, although Joseph Avron appears to be a competent
physicist, Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest prohibits authors
from using Wikipedia as a forum to tout their own work. Hence I was
tempted to delete his contribution. In the end, I didn't, because although
his section was poorly written, there wasn't anything actually invalid
about it so far as I could see.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > FOG devices, in solid state form (as pioneered by Siemens by 1979) are today an essential part of monitoring devices for safe flights in any commercial or military plane. Also, exist as backup reference in cruise missiles and have many other applications.
> > > >
> > > > FOG senses changes in orientation using the Sagnac effect, and is not
> > > > related to any derivation from SR or GR, which generated a bitter and long
> > > > dispute for decades, since 1909, still unsolved.
> >
> > > Ahh, the irony
> > > Turns out that FOGs CONFIRM special relativity , by being one of the most direct and obvious applications of the RELATIVISTIC
> > > velocity composition. You shot yourself in the foot, kapo. Again.
> > Say that to Engelhardt (and thanks for reminding me about him). And check his paper again (I put the link a few posts behind this).
> I posted the correct relativistic formula here on 18 August. Here is a more readable
> version (meaning, properly typeset, not ASCII):
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
>
> The formula for the delay is marked "(*)", the second term in it is what's typically omitted
> from the usual approximations. It's a very tiny term but it must be kept in mind
> when critiquing the concept of Sagnac delay in principle.
>
> The units of c = 1 are used in that formula for simplicity. Use the usual
> substitutions to get the MKS.
>
> In the references [2] and [3] quoted there there is a general formula (**) for
> more general metrics. The note I linked above was originally written to
> verify that the general formula (**) does indeed reduce to (*) in the case
> of a rotating system in the Minkowski space.
>
> BTW, a very highly recommended reference is [1]:
>
> Anandan J. “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic physics” Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
> 338–346
>
> It was FAPP the first published paper which clearly pointed out that the
> source of the delay comes from the discrepancy between the two
> helices on the ring worldline (i.e., a cylinder): the worldline of the
> light source and the helix of simultaneity.
>
> --
> Jan

And this is what I call gobbledygook.

I extracted this from your link (at the end of it):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms

"It’s worth noting, as wisely observed in [4], that all this is TO SOME EXTENT ACADEMIC since ANY REAL LIFE
experimental setup either uses a finite set of mirrors (in which case the light paths are bent according to the
rotating observer, hence the co- and counter-rotating paths do not exactly coincide, so this analysis does not
apply 100%) or a fibre optics cable of some kind (which affects the signal speed very slightly but enough to
be comparable to the order of the second term in Δτ"

"[4] Maraner P., Zendri J-P. “General relativistic Sagnac formula revised” Gen. Rel. Gravit. 44 (2012), 1713–1723
(also arXiv:1110.1643v3 [gr-qc])"

See, Jan Piotr Bielawski?
Pure theoretical MathTurbation, just to show off you command of GR and advanced math.

Contributions to real life? NONE
Satisfaction for your ego? 100%
Compatibility with einstenian GR gobbledygook? 80% (Hey, you used c=1 as a true einstenian physicist)
Look for innocent readers? Impressive. This guy knows stuff.
Similar writings in the last 50 years? about 1,000, NOT providing the slightest advance (let it to real scientists).

I'm done for now.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:18:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > FOG devices, in solid state form (as pioneered by Siemens by 1979) are today an essential part of monitoring devices for safe flights in any commercial or military plane. Also, exist as backup reference in cruise missiles and have many other applications.
> > > > >
> > > > > FOG senses changes in orientation using the Sagnac effect, and is not
> > > > > related to any derivation from SR or GR, which generated a bitter and long
> > > > > dispute for decades, since 1909, still unsolved.
> > >
> > > > Ahh, the irony
> > > > Turns out that FOGs CONFIRM special relativity , by being one of the most direct and obvious applications of the RELATIVISTIC
> > > > velocity composition. You shot yourself in the foot, kapo. Again.
> > > Say that to Engelhardt (and thanks for reminding me about him). And check his paper again (I put the link a few posts behind this).
> > I posted the correct relativistic formula here on 18 August. Here is a more readable
> > version (meaning, properly typeset, not ASCII):
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
> >
> > The formula for the delay is marked "(*)", the second term in it is what's typically omitted
> > from the usual approximations. It's a very tiny term but it must be kept in mind
> > when critiquing the concept of Sagnac delay in principle.
> >
> > The units of c = 1 are used in that formula for simplicity. Use the usual
> > substitutions to get the MKS.
> >
> > In the references [2] and [3] quoted there there is a general formula (**) for
> > more general metrics. The note I linked above was originally written to
> > verify that the general formula (**) does indeed reduce to (*) in the case
> > of a rotating system in the Minkowski space.
> >
> > BTW, a very highly recommended reference is [1]:
> >
> > Anandan J. “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic physics” Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
> > 338–346
> >
> > It was FAPP the first published paper which clearly pointed out that the
> > source of the delay comes from the discrepancy between the two
> > helices on the ring worldline (i.e., a cylinder): the worldline of the
> > light source and the helix of simultaneity.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> And this is what I call gobbledygook.
>
> I extracted this from your link (at the end of it):
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
>
> "It’s worth noting, as wisely observed in [4], that all this is TO SOME EXTENT ACADEMIC since ANY REAL LIFE
> experimental setup either uses a finite set of mirrors (in which case the light paths are bent according to the
> rotating observer, hence the co- and counter-rotating paths do not exactly coincide, so this analysis does not
> apply 100%) or a fibre optics cable of some kind (which affects the signal speed very slightly but enough to
> be comparable to the order of the second term in Δτ"
>
> "[4] Maraner P., Zendri J-P. “General relativistic Sagnac formula revised” Gen. Rel. Gravit. 44 (2012), 1713–1723
> (also arXiv:1110.1643v3 [gr-qc])"
>
> See, Jan Piotr Bielawski?

My middle name is Paul. The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the
exact formula, not an approximation.

> Pure theoretical MathTurbation, just to show off you command of GR and advanced math.

No, it's just the formula for the Sagnac effect. I thought you were interested in Sagnac effect?
No? So why did you create this thread?

> Contributions to real life? NONE

The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the exact formula, not an
approximation.

> I'm done for now.

No, you are not. You just need your ego boost daily dose by posting junk science and idiocies.

--
Jan

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:51:18 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:18:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > FOG devices, in solid state form (as pioneered by Siemens by 1979) are today an essential part of monitoring devices for safe flights in any commercial or military plane. Also, exist as backup reference in cruise missiles and have many other applications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FOG senses changes in orientation using the Sagnac effect, and is not
> > > > > > related to any derivation from SR or GR, which generated a bitter and long
> > > > > > dispute for decades, since 1909, still unsolved.
> > > >
> > > > > Ahh, the irony
> > > > > Turns out that FOGs CONFIRM special relativity , by being one of the most direct and obvious applications of the RELATIVISTIC
> > > > > velocity composition. You shot yourself in the foot, kapo. Again.
> > > > Say that to Engelhardt (and thanks for reminding me about him). And check his paper again (I put the link a few posts behind this).
> > > I posted the correct relativistic formula here on 18 August. Here is a more readable
> > > version (meaning, properly typeset, not ASCII):
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
> > >
> > > The formula for the delay is marked "(*)", the second term in it is what's typically omitted
> > > from the usual approximations. It's a very tiny term but it must be kept in mind
> > > when critiquing the concept of Sagnac delay in principle.
> > >
> > > The units of c = 1 are used in that formula for simplicity. Use the usual
> > > substitutions to get the MKS.
> > >
> > > In the references [2] and [3] quoted there there is a general formula (**) for
> > > more general metrics. The note I linked above was originally written to
> > > verify that the general formula (**) does indeed reduce to (*) in the case
> > > of a rotating system in the Minkowski space.
> > >
> > > BTW, a very highly recommended reference is [1]:
> > >
> > > Anandan J. “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic physics” Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
> > > 338–346
> > >
> > > It was FAPP the first published paper which clearly pointed out that the
> > > source of the delay comes from the discrepancy between the two
> > > helices on the ring worldline (i.e., a cylinder): the worldline of the
> > > light source and the helix of simultaneity.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > And this is what I call gobbledygook.
> >
> > I extracted this from your link (at the end of it):
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
> >
> > "It’s worth noting, as wisely observed in [4], that all this is TO SOME EXTENT ACADEMIC since ANY REAL LIFE
> > experimental setup either uses a finite set of mirrors (in which case the light paths are bent according to the
> > rotating observer, hence the co- and counter-rotating paths do not exactly coincide, so this analysis does not
> > apply 100%) or a fibre optics cable of some kind (which affects the signal speed very slightly but enough to
> > be comparable to the order of the second term in Δτ"
> >
> > "[4] Maraner P., Zendri J-P. “General relativistic Sagnac formula revised” Gen. Rel. Gravit. 44 (2012), 1713–1723
> > (also arXiv:1110.1643v3 [gr-qc])"
> >
> > See, Jan Piotr Bielawski?
> My middle name is Paul. The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the
> exact formula, not an approximation.
> > Pure theoretical MathTurbation, just to show off you command of GR and advanced math.
> No, it's just the formula for the Sagnac effect. I thought you were interested in Sagnac effect?
> No? So why did you create this thread?
> > Contributions to real life? NONE
> The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the exact formula, not an
> approximation.
> > I'm done for now.
> No, you are not. You just need your ego boost daily dose by posting junk science and idiocies.
>
> --
> Jan

I was joking with Piotr. Actually, I found one with this middle name in Warsaw, but had a FB and IG
account, full of photos. I thought he was too young to be you.

Listen Jan, I just entered into the Sagnac theory to post a new topic over here. I read about the inconclusive
fight for 100+ years between relativists and anti-relativity people, and I thought it did worth a post here.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 12:42:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:51:18 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:18:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > FOG devices, in solid state form (as pioneered by Siemens by 1979) are today an essential part of monitoring devices for safe flights in any commercial or military plane. Also, exist as backup reference in cruise missiles and have many other applications.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > FOG senses changes in orientation using the Sagnac effect, and is not
> > > > > > > related to any derivation from SR or GR, which generated a bitter and long
> > > > > > > dispute for decades, since 1909, still unsolved.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ahh, the irony
> > > > > > Turns out that FOGs CONFIRM special relativity , by being one of the most direct and obvious applications of the RELATIVISTIC
> > > > > > velocity composition. You shot yourself in the foot, kapo. Again.
> > > > > Say that to Engelhardt (and thanks for reminding me about him). And check his paper again (I put the link a few posts behind this).
> > > > I posted the correct relativistic formula here on 18 August. Here is a more readable
> > > > version (meaning, properly typeset, not ASCII):
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
> > > >
> > > > The formula for the delay is marked "(*)", the second term in it is what's typically omitted
> > > > from the usual approximations. It's a very tiny term but it must be kept in mind
> > > > when critiquing the concept of Sagnac delay in principle.
> > > >
> > > > The units of c = 1 are used in that formula for simplicity. Use the usual
> > > > substitutions to get the MKS.
> > > >
> > > > In the references [2] and [3] quoted there there is a general formula (**) for
> > > > more general metrics. The note I linked above was originally written to
> > > > verify that the general formula (**) does indeed reduce to (*) in the case
> > > > of a rotating system in the Minkowski space.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, a very highly recommended reference is [1]:
> > > >
> > > > Anandan J. “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic physics” Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
> > > > 338–346
> > > >
> > > > It was FAPP the first published paper which clearly pointed out that the
> > > > source of the delay comes from the discrepancy between the two
> > > > helices on the ring worldline (i.e., a cylinder): the worldline of the
> > > > light source and the helix of simultaneity.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > > And this is what I call gobbledygook.
> > >
> > > I extracted this from your link (at the end of it):
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
> > >
> > > "It’s worth noting, as wisely observed in [4], that all this is TO SOME EXTENT ACADEMIC since ANY REAL LIFE
> > > experimental setup either uses a finite set of mirrors (in which case the light paths are bent according to the
> > > rotating observer, hence the co- and counter-rotating paths do not exactly coincide, so this analysis does not
> > > apply 100%) or a fibre optics cable of some kind (which affects the signal speed very slightly but enough to
> > > be comparable to the order of the second term in Δτ"
> > >
> > > "[4] Maraner P., Zendri J-P. “General relativistic Sagnac formula revised” Gen. Rel. Gravit. 44 (2012), 1713–1723
> > > (also arXiv:1110.1643v3 [gr-qc])"
> > >
> > > See, Jan Piotr Bielawski?
> > My middle name is Paul. The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the
> > exact formula, not an approximation.
> > > Pure theoretical MathTurbation, just to show off you command of GR and advanced math.
> > No, it's just the formula for the Sagnac effect. I thought you were interested in Sagnac effect?
> > No? So why did you create this thread?
> > > Contributions to real life? NONE
> > The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the exact formula, not an
> > approximation.
> > > I'm done for now.
> > No, you are not. You just need your ego boost daily dose by posting junk science and idiocies.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> I was joking with Piotr.

That's not my name BTW.

> Listen Jan, I just entered into the Sagnac theory to post a new topic over here. I read about the inconclusive
> fight for 100+ years between relativists and anti-relativity people, and I thought it did worth a post here.

There is nothing inconclusive in this. Just like the flat Earth, or squaring the circle, certain topics never
go away, regardless of facts.

--
Jan

JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 12:42:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:51:18 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:18:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>>>> FOG devices, in solid state form (as pioneered by Siemens by 1979)
>>>>>>>> are today an essential part of monitoring devices for safe flights
>>>>>>>> in any commercial or military plane. Also, exist as backup
>>>>>>>> reference in cruise missiles and have many other applications.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FOG senses changes in orientation using the Sagnac effect, and is not
>>>>>>>> related to any derivation from SR or GR, which generated a bitter and long
>>>>>>>> dispute for decades, since 1909, still unsolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ahh, the irony
>>>>>>> Turns out that FOGs CONFIRM special relativity , by being one of
>>>>>>> the most direct and obvious applications of the RELATIVISTIC
>>>>>>> velocity composition. You shot yourself in the foot, kapo. Again.
>>>>>> Say that to Engelhardt (and thanks for reminding me about him). And
>>>>>> check his paper again (I put the link a few posts behind this).
>>>>> I posted the correct relativistic formula here on 18 August. Here is a more readable
>>>>> version (meaning, properly typeset, not ASCII):
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
>>>>>
>>>>> The formula for the delay is marked "(*)", the second term in it is
>>>>> what's typically omitted
>>>>> from the usual approximations. It's a very tiny term but it must be kept in mind
>>>>> when critiquing the concept of Sagnac delay in principle.
>>>>>
>>>>> The units of c = 1 are used in that formula for simplicity. Use the usual
>>>>> substitutions to get the MKS.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the references [2] and [3] quoted there there is a general formula (**) for
>>>>> more general metrics. The note I linked above was originally written to
>>>>> verify that the general formula (**) does indeed reduce to (*) in the case
>>>>> of a rotating system in the Minkowski space.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, a very highly recommended reference is [1]:
>>>>>
>>>>> Anandan J. “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic
>>>>> physics” Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
>>>>> 338–346
>>>>>
>>>>> It was FAPP the first published paper which clearly pointed out that the
>>>>> source of the delay comes from the discrepancy between the two
>>>>> helices on the ring worldline (i.e., a cylinder): the worldline of the
>>>>> light source and the helix of simultaneity.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jan
>>>> And this is what I call gobbledygook.
>>>>
>>>> I extracted this from your link (at the end of it):
>>>>
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
>>>>
>>>> "It’s worth noting, as wisely observed in [4], that all this is TO
>>>> SOME EXTENT ACADEMIC since ANY REAL LIFE
>>>> experimental setup either uses a finite set of mirrors (in which case
>>>> the light paths are bent according to the
>>>> rotating observer, hence the co- and counter-rotating paths do not
>>>> exactly coincide, so this analysis does not
>>>> apply 100%) or a fibre optics cable of some kind (which affects the
>>>> signal speed very slightly but enough to
>>>> be comparable to the order of the second term in Δτ"
>>>>
>>>> "[4] Maraner P., Zendri J-P. “General relativistic Sagnac formula
>>>> revised” Gen. Rel. Gravit. 44 (2012), 1713–1723
>>>> (also arXiv:1110.1643v3 [gr-qc])"
>>>>
>>>> See, Jan Piotr Bielawski?
>>> My middle name is Paul. The point is that if you want to critique
>>> Sagnac effect, you need the
>>> exact formula, not an approximation.
>>>> Pure theoretical MathTurbation, just to show off you command of GR and advanced math.
>>> No, it's just the formula for the Sagnac effect. I thought you were
>>> interested in Sagnac effect?
>>> No? So why did you create this thread?
>>>> Contributions to real life? NONE
>>> The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the
>>> exact formula, not an
>>> approximation.
>>>> I'm done for now.
>>> No, you are not. You just need your ego boost daily dose by posting
>>> junk science and idiocies.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jan
>> I was joking with Piotr.
>
> That's not my name BTW.
>
>> Listen Jan, I just entered into the Sagnac theory to post a new topic
>> over here. I read about the inconclusive
>> fight for 100+ years between relativists and anti-relativity people, and
>> I thought it did worth a post here.
>
> There is nothing inconclusive in this. Just like the flat Earth, or
> squaring the circle, certain topics never
> go away, regardless of facts.

“One other person and I are not convinced. Therefore it is controversial!”

>
> --
> Jan
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:18:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> Contributions to real life? NONE
Dumbestfuck

FOGs and RLGs are used for stabilizing aicraft (mostly helicopters) in daily life. The all operate based on the Sagnac effect. You are eating shit once again.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 9:30:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > Contributions to real life? NONE
> Dumbestfuck
>
> FOGs and RLGs are used for stabilizing aicraft (mostly helicopters) in daily life. The all operate based on the Sagnac effect. You are eating shit once again.

Don't change the use of part of my reply to JanPB, genetic garbage!
I was writing about contributions of JanPB's theoretical paper on Sagnac, using GR.

Dono, when I tried to picture how do you look, I had to abandon such horrible task, as it made me want to puke.

I imagine you as something more sinister and evil than a bad clone of Gollum. Here you can have a pic of you:

https://www.vidaextra.com/accion/the-lord-of-the-rings-gollum-daedalic-explorara-la-tierra-media-de-tolkien-a-traves-de-los-ojos-de-gollum

No wonder an evil, frustrated Gollum can act the way you do. Life made a genetic joke on you, and you come here
to pester the site.

On Sunday, 22 August 2021 at 22:58:04 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 12:42:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 3:51:18 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 10:18:57 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 6:35:03 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 7:38:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:42 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:49:47 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > > > > FOG devices, in solid state form (as pioneered by Siemens by 1979) are today an essential part of monitoring devices for safe flights in any commercial or military plane. Also, exist as backup reference in cruise missiles and have many other applications.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FOG senses changes in orientation using the Sagnac effect, and is not
> > > > > > > > related to any derivation from SR or GR, which generated a bitter and long
> > > > > > > > dispute for decades, since 1909, still unsolved.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ahh, the irony
> > > > > > > Turns out that FOGs CONFIRM special relativity , by being one of the most direct and obvious applications of the RELATIVISTIC
> > > > > > > velocity composition. You shot yourself in the foot, kapo. Again.
> > > > > > Say that to Engelhardt (and thanks for reminding me about him). And check his paper again (I put the link a few posts behind this).
> > > > > I posted the correct relativistic formula here on 18 August. Here is a more readable
> > > > > version (meaning, properly typeset, not ASCII):
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
> > > > >
> > > > > The formula for the delay is marked "(*)", the second term in it is what's typically omitted
> > > > > from the usual approximations. It's a very tiny term but it must be kept in mind
> > > > > when critiquing the concept of Sagnac delay in principle.
> > > > >
> > > > > The units of c = 1 are used in that formula for simplicity. Use the usual
> > > > > substitutions to get the MKS.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the references [2] and [3] quoted there there is a general formula (**) for
> > > > > more general metrics. The note I linked above was originally written to
> > > > > verify that the general formula (**) does indeed reduce to (*) in the case
> > > > > of a rotating system in the Minkowski space.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, a very highly recommended reference is [1]:
> > > > >
> > > > > Anandan J. “Sagnac effect in relativistic and nonrelativistic physics” Phys. Rev. D 24 No. 2 (1981),
> > > > > 338–346
> > > > >
> > > > > It was FAPP the first published paper which clearly pointed out that the
> > > > > source of the delay comes from the discrepancy between the two
> > > > > helices on the ring worldline (i.e., a cylinder): the worldline of the
> > > > > light source and the helix of simultaneity.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > > And this is what I call gobbledygook.
> > > >
> > > > I extracted this from your link (at the end of it):
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2N1X7SgQnLRNUVKS1NKYXI0Mms
> > > >
> > > > "It’s worth noting, as wisely observed in [4], that all this is TO SOME EXTENT ACADEMIC since ANY REAL LIFE
> > > > experimental setup either uses a finite set of mirrors (in which case the light paths are bent according to the
> > > > rotating observer, hence the co- and counter-rotating paths do not exactly coincide, so this analysis does not
> > > > apply 100%) or a fibre optics cable of some kind (which affects the signal speed very slightly but enough to
> > > > be comparable to the order of the second term in Δτ"
> > > >
> > > > "[4] Maraner P., Zendri J-P. “General relativistic Sagnac formula revised” Gen. Rel. Gravit. 44 (2012), 1713–1723
> > > > (also arXiv:1110.1643v3 [gr-qc])"
> > > >
> > > > See, Jan Piotr Bielawski?
> > > My middle name is Paul. The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the
> > > exact formula, not an approximation.
> > > > Pure theoretical MathTurbation, just to show off you command of GR and advanced math.
> > > No, it's just the formula for the Sagnac effect. I thought you were interested in Sagnac effect?
> > > No? So why did you create this thread?
> > > > Contributions to real life? NONE
> > > The point is that if you want to critique Sagnac effect, you need the exact formula, not an
> > > approximation.
> > > > I'm done for now.
> > > No, you are not. You just need your ego boost daily dose by posting junk science and idiocies.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > I was joking with Piotr.
> That's not my name BTW.
> > Listen Jan, I just entered into the Sagnac theory to post a new topic over here. I read about the inconclusive
> > fight for 100+ years between relativists and anti-relativity people, and I thought it did worth a post here.
> There is nothing inconclusive in this. Just like the flat Earth, or squaring the circle, certain topics never
> go away, regardless of facts.
>

Sure; for some decades we have GPS with clocks indicating
t'=t, but relativistic fanatics still insist on their idiocies.

On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 8:49:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 9:30:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Contributions to real life? NONE
> > Dumbestfuck
> >
> > FOGs and RLGs are used for stabilizing aicraft (mostly helicopters) in daily life. The all operate based on the Sagnac effect. You are eating shit once again.
> Don't change the use of part of my reply to JanPB,

Crankshit

The fact is that this all thread is about your pathetic attempts at using the FOG functionality and the Sagnac effect for "dis[roving" relativity. You failed miserably demented sack of shit.

Dono. wrote:

> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 8:49:30 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 22, 2021 at 9:30:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > > Contributions to real life? NONE
>> > Dumbestfuck
>> >
>> > FOGs and RLGs are used for stabilizing aicraft (mostly helicopters)
>> > in daily life. The all operate based on the Sagnac effect. You are
>> > eating shit once again.
>> Don't change the use of part of my reply to JanPB,
>
> Crankshit
> The fact is that this all thread is about your pathetic attempts at
> using the FOG functionality and the Sagnac effect for "dis[roving"
> relativity. You failed miserably demented sack of shit.

disagree, shit is not kept in sacks.