[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 20, Issue 3e3lel

[Doug Marett]

Hi Carl,

    Regarding my own Sagnac effect experiments, I have been building and
running experiments with fiber optic gyroscopes now for about 8 years or
so, there have been many experiments, the most elaborate of which was a 6
month study I did in 2015 monitoring subtle changes in the magnitude of the
Sagnac effect measured diurnally in a rotating interferometer, using
wireless data transmission captured in Excel. Just doing a fast check, I
had 1718 files from that experiment alone. For reference, here is a paper
describing one of my fiber optic gyroscope designs:

http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0002

I also sell them online:
https://skyhunt.net/fiber-optic-gyroscope-kit-fully-assembled/

You should try it, maybe I am acting like a positivist but there is nothing
better than seeing it with your own eyes...

Can I get my Nobel prize now, please?  : )

Doug



On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 12:03 PM <cj at mb-soft.com> wrote:

> You guyas make various "statements" as thoiugh they have been proven to be
> true.  For example, "moving clocks go slower".  That is a popular idea, but
> it has never been experimentally been seem to be true.  Your comment is
> BASED on an assumption which is NOT true, that ONLY Special Relativity
> exists, and that you are free to totally ignore the existence of General
> Relativity.  Physicists know that you cannot do that.  .
>
> You also accuse me of making two statements that I would never make.
> Please experimentally describe the "thousands of times" you have "observed"
> the Sagnac effect.  If that is actually TRUE then you certainly deserve a
> Nobel.
>
> And I see that you hjave adopted Trump's "fake news" accusations.  Are you
> claiming that I "imagined" two airliners which wenbt arounf the world in
> 1971?  That I somehow "dreamed it up"?  Feel free to access the NASA
> database with the RESULTS of that experiment.  Their RESULTS  show that
> the NASA (friends of mine) had totally neglected ANY General Relativity.
> NASA totally ACCEPTED tghat the sets of FOUR cesium clocks in each airliner
> did NOT agree with each other.  They acknowledged that the "error factors"
> between the various pairs od clocks were GREATER than the "result" that
> they had hoped to detect.  In other words, the experiment was FAULTY and it
> necessarily failed.  It also failed for an entirely separate second reason,
> that of NASA neglecting to try to do any math regarding GR.  It is sort of
> hilarious that people STILL think they are free to ignore  GR in trying to
> do that math.  I am onplly one of HUNDREDS of Physicists and mathematicians
> who have done that math "correctly".   You are free to INCLUDE the
> Equivalency factor in that math where you would see WHY the Hafele-Keating
> experiment was doomed to failure.
>
> But it is a lot easier to just claim that  "I" made up FAKE NEWS, which
> saves you the effort of actually doing the math, or even looking at NASA's
> data.
>
> YOUR understandong of Sagnac, is EITHER far beypnd the thousands of us
> Physicisrs and Mathematicians where you deserve a Nobel, or you need to
> apply much better logic in trying to understand juast WHAT Sagnac is
>
> It's too bad that your group was not around to "teach" me that I was
> WASTING fifteen years of my life in studying advanced math and physics.
> THEN you would be free to dream up whatever you want to believe.  I had
> even provided a link to a wonderful hundred pages of Notes from a 1997
> "Introductory Course".  I guess you didn't waste your time in trying to
> understand that math..
>
> Carl Johnson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181124/a7dd2f8d/attachment.html>