I don't think i understand what you mean by this. How do you think air is causing a fringe pattern in a stationary rlg (in a room with no wind)?
I mean the air is moving the wave over at the same speed of Earth's rotation then. So how could there be a noticably difference between a rotating Earth with rotating lower atmosphere and no rotation measured with this? There can't be.
But this is the core difference between mmx (detected no cosmic linear motion) and gale pearson (detected local/earthbound rotational motion)
I don't know gale pearson yet. But from what I understand MMX was designed to look at earthbound rotational motion as well.
However if that loop is intended to spin on the spindles that is certainly going to introduce vibration (and hence fringe) in and of itself
Yes it is intended to be mover on those wheels or spindles. Not sure how much vabration was in the system, ask Mr Wang who made it.
The device is intended to observe Sagnac and look at how much linear motion contributes to the effect over a standard rotational only setup.
Are the arrows showing the fiberoptic cable moving or is that just the direction of the light?
The fiber optic cable is in fact moving.
Unless i am very much misunderstanding the diagram - the device will ONLY show interference pattern when the device is moving
Only the top part of the paralellogram moves from right to left. The base is stable.
They aren't wrong about that, but Kamala and Biden are weird as hell too.
Why is her name in all caps, that is weird.
If the device I cited looks odd I would first study the mechanisms behind a fiber optic gyroscrope. It splits a beam of light, those light beams take different paths around the circle in opposite directions, they then recombine.
Although, I do see the possible objection for the detector moving. They have it moving linearly with the same velocity as the fiber optic cable it is measureing.
So I think it is the parallelogram experiment that actually rules out the detector motion. The base is stationary. https://media.scored.co/post/7NYfywPD4Z1R.png
In the mmx - ideally anyhow - the medium is stationary (in the local frame of reference).
Exactly, if the air is "stationary" in the local reference frame it is moving along with a rotating Earth. So detecting any effects of rotation would not be possible with mmx if Sagnac is invoked.
The fringe occurs because of motion. The fringe that didn't appear in the mmx (or rather, didn't appear outside the range of error / vibration for the device) is the measurement of that lack of motion.
You're missing what I'm saying. It is motion either way, but in one case the motion is the exact same as the rotating Earth. So of course there can not be a fringe if the air is moving the wave over.
The sagnac i am familiar with is basically on a spinning kitchen dolly. When stationary - a circular/curved path - would be expected to exhibit a minor fringe pattern for the same reasons the circular gale pearson (also stationary) did.
But it turns out it has nothing to do with being circular. That's already been shown in better experiments.
It's the motion of the detector that is registered though, not the air.
I have no reason to think that. The detector is hit after the beams have recombined. So any changes in the velocity was done before reaching it.
They also rotated the apparatus many times to try and determine the "true" direction of motion of the earth around the sun. This ought to have dealt with that "perpendicular blindness issue" - right?
Not so. I suppose it's more than* an issue of perpendicular vs not. With MMX the beam travels half the journey one way then half the other, so all the effects in the direction of movement are cancelled out. MMX just assumed the perpendicular effects are not cancelled out, but in fact they also are (at least in air).
The only way to see the effects is with a device that only pushes the light in one direction before it recombines with the split portion of itself. See this aparatus which did just that... https://media.scored.co/post/3fvtgZNPCd1F.png
They are basically the same thing (except the sagnac apparatus was rotating).
The difference being one is moving with the medium, the other perpendicular to it. So we would expect different results. For Sagnac (including those showing linear motion, not only rotation) we see a fringe. That includes when the detector is NOT in rotation (some have tried to argue that this is the causal mechanism, but it is not). Therefore when the air is moving perpendicular to the light and with the detector as in the MMX aparatus, we would expect a null result.
I appreciate the recommendation, I will look into it.
What did you have in mind? Generally - i don't need you to cite me a paper.
Sagnac and linear Sagnac effect. It's a popular talking point among certain "kooks", but it is an established phenomenon.
This is precisely what happened when we went from geocentric to heliocentric. We arbitrarily decided heliocentric was better because the math looked nicer
That's not quite it though. As I said, the model was able to explain what the previous model struggled with. In order for me to consider geocentrism I'd need to see compelling reasoning of why the failings of that previous model need not apply under some new version of it.
But you're right, MMX could (*under the right circumstances) point to a stationary Earth. But more experiments could be done to see if this is valid, and would need to be before I'd even consider it. If I can explain MMX with Sagnac then I have no need to jump the shark and turn cosmology completely on its head.
I'm glad you mentioned that book is Catholic propaganda, in which case I'd need to read a different book.
That is Zionist shill Laura Loomer up close and personal with the Donald.
She's very Jewish, very Zionist, and you don't talk that close to a person you aren't f-cking.
Why do you support faggotry? God told us sodomy is an abomination.
lol you got called out. LESBIAN!!
I will repost my response to Smith here:
Check the forehead. Mark Wahlburg and Bieber.
https://www.pngegg.com/en/png-fpoyr
https://cdn01.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/mark_wahlberg_suit/mark-wahlberg-suit-04.jpg
It's one thing to be a pretty boy with good genetics. But rarely will they have a FEMALE FOREHEAD going straight up like that. And a female brow ridge which is barely there.
Compare that to 80s pretty boy with good genetics River Phoenix. That's a dude's forehead and brow ridge.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/river-phoenix--401172279326096549/
You can go down the list. Johnny Depp, as a youngster if you put a wig on him he'd almost look like a chick, but has a MALE FOREHEAD, MALE BROW RIDGE https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQr7UG8RTWt1qjP3FNsy_3D--Sq4fSNRT6iHA&s
And another. 90s heart throb, he had boyish good looks yet a very male forehead and brow ridge. https://in.pinterest.com/pin/43628690129341206/ That's standard.
Bieber has a female forehead and brow ridge. Also no adam's apple either in the side profile shot. I'm telling you that one was born female.
You sound like a LESBIAN.
How many feminine features does someone have to have before you call it a tranny?
No adam's apple. Female forehead. Female brow ridge. Weak female neck. Female index to ring finger ratio. Inability to build much muscle mass, even with other signs of good genetics and a personal trainer. Small frame. Feet smaller than "his" (her) gf. Wears bulky clothes that are completely shitty and out of style to cover it up. Looked like a lesbian hanging out with his ex gf when clean shaven.
You can look at any leading Hollywood star, even all the pretty boys, and none of them look like LESBIANS with their gf. They look boyish, but not like a LESBIAN.
I'm not someone who sees everyone as a tranny. But this mfer, is a female, a LESBIAN.
she a LESBIAN!
I know what a normal Hollywood pretty boy looks like.
I know what a normal faggot looks like.
Bieber is neither.
This is the look of a lesbian. That's all it is. The satanists gave young girls a tranny to lust over, because they worship a tranny demon Baphomet.
Check the forehead. Mark Wahlburg and Bieber.
https://www.pngegg.com/en/png-fpoyr
https://cdn01.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/mark_wahlberg_suit/mark-wahlberg-suit-04.jpg
It's one thing to be a pretty boy with good genetics. But rarely will they have a FEMALE FOREHEAD going straight up. And that female brow ridge which is barely there.
Compare to 80s pretty boy with good genetics River Phoenix. That's a dude's forehead and brow ridge.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/river-phoenix--401172279326096549/
One more for good measure. Johnny Depp, as a youngster if you put a wig on him he'd almost look like a chick, but MALE FOREHEAD, MALE BROW https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQr7UG8RTWt1qjP3FNsy_3D--Sq4fSNRT6iHA&s
And another. 90s heart throb, boyish good looks as a young man, very male forehead and brow ridge. https://in.pinterest.com/pin/43628690129341206/ That's standard.
Bieber has no adam's apple either in the side profile. I'm telling you that one was born female.
Hip indent above the naval.
The fact is he(she) is limited in building muscle despite signs of good genetics. So you're going to tell me he is a celeb who does drugs, but won't touch TRT? When image is so important? So every other person in Hollywood will do it but Bieber stays natty?
WRONG. This is the best Miss Bieber can do because she is already on TRT! She just doesn't respond well to it.
Being able to grow a beard does not prove it to be a male.
He has pretty broad shoulders and a manly physique too
That's not true. That's why it wears these super over sized clothes to LOOK like a man's size. But he/she is not. Him and Selena Gomez looked like a couple of lesbians together.
That's interesting. I'm going to have to look into GPS math when I can make some time / energy for it.
GPS clocks on satellites do slowed slightly IIRC not 1.024 MHz clock signal, but 1.02399...whatever MHz to satisfy special and general relativistic time distortion prediction (-7μS/day special, +45μS/day general, total +38μS/day) to make satellite clocks appear running at same pace as clocks on Earth, but this does not make any real sense, since any absolute error is cancelled by differential nature of measurement
I'm confused by that statement. So you said they don't use Lorentz, but then you are saying the clocks do see a slow down which satisfies relativity but is negligible. Are you claiming they are adding this slow down deliberately? I don't understand.
It seems like even if the effect is small, as you allege, they are still using the Lorentz equations.
lol, he(?) is a fitness bro. He's a pop star in the public eye so they got him (her) working out and doing everything possible to be as good looking as possible.
I know what low T males look like. I know what faggots look like. This person doesn't quite fit into any of those categories.
Also, the guy getting all the girls like he was as a teen, doesn't go the low T route. Low T is you stay in your room eating junk food playing World of Warcraft and don't have a girlfriend. He lived a high T lifestyle in his formative years, but still looks like puberty didn't reach him despite markers of good genetics. It just doesn't add up.
Well Ron Hatch who has patents in the field of GPS says they do use the Lorenz transformation.
Truth hurts Bieber fan.
Bro I'm a Millennial and Bieber doesn't look right. Guys with good genetics (pretty boys) grow up to be men and usually chads. You can look at just about every single Hollywood lead actor. They don't grow into whatever Bieber is.
He's had the best chefs in the world and personal trainers at his disposal. A guy with good genetics would be ripped and develop normally under such conditions. The only reason someone with good genetics could still look like they haven't finished puberty is being a tranny.
Doesn't even seem possible. What could you even blow up in a pager or walkie walkie? A very tiny capacitor?