@Stanley N

So, looking at the lab frame, your calulations assume that the beams travel the distances L - vt- and L + vt+. Then, using relativistic addition/subtraction you derive the equation of mathpages.com as a description of the situation in the lab frame.

But what does that prove?

In the loop frame, the distance is one and the same for both beams: L. Neither the apparatus nor any part of it moves in the loop frame. If both light beams would travel at the same speed (as Special Relativity requires) then the measured fringe shift and the time difference would be zero:

  t- = L / c
  t+ = L / c

  t+ - t- = L / c - L / c = 0

But that's not what the detector shows.

Special Relativity claims to describe the experiment in both reference frames. To falsify Special Relativity, it is sufficient, if it fails in one of the frames.

SR does explain this. It has to do with exactly how the measurement is done, and whether you have (or can have) properly synchronized "clocks".

No, Special Relativity does not explain it.

In the loop frame the interferometer is always at rest, no matter whether the lab frame is in motion with respect to the loop frame or not.

Consequently, given Special Relativity, the interferometer cannot be used to detect whether it is in motion with respect to the lab or not.

Unfortunately for relativists, the experiment shows that the interferometer can be used to measure the speed.

To refute Special Relativity, you can also use short red light pulses in one direction and short blue light pulses in the other. Let them go millions of turns around the loop and count the number of loops done for each color. You will find that the difference of turns counted for each color will increase with time if and only if the interferometer is in motion with respect to the lab.

There are other ways to do it, and the problem for Special Relativity has nothing to do with exactly how the measurement is done or with clocks (or even "clocks").

I might have thought you would be a little less dogmatic now, after the algebra incident.

Making a mistake when hastily looking at some poorly typeset (which is not your fault) equations does not change my assessment of the facts, since these equations do not concern the reason why the experiment refutes Einstein's Special Relativity.

Have you tried to look up how those who accept SR explain a moving Sagnac device in the loop frame?

I have looked at several attempts to defend Special Relativity against it's experimental refutation by Sagnac. They try to explain the problems away.

What did they say?

You tell us.

Did you come across the idea that rotation is not relative in SR?

Yes, I did. Since you mention the topic, you may be interested in the work of Wang et. al. who have conducted a Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber (Physics Letters A 312 (2003) 7-10)

Their conclusion:

The travel-time difference of two counter-propagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform.

So there's a "linear Sagnac effect". Subterfuge to ideas like that "rotation may not be relative in SR" is futile.

I'm rather curious how you came to decide that SR is wrong. How did you come to that conclusion so definitively, and against the scientific consensus?

Academics, aristocrats and clerus have been the vanguard of the revolt which has been destroying the Faith and the whole christian culture for centuries. There is no reason to have more confidence in a "scientific consensus" than in mainstream media or in a bunch of modernists leading souls to hell. Caballism and Noachidism rules, while faith, truth, and sincerity are punished.

Nowadays, scientists escort the plan to replace peoples by mixed race populations. Genocide against their own.

An overwhelming majority of scientists are godless jumping jacks, who e.g. defend imbecile Darwinism, which rejects basic laws of thought: nothing happens without a sufficient reason.

Scientists, who talk about things like "vacuum permeability" and "vacuum permittivity", should be sent off to work in quarries. Don't they even know about contradictions in terms? Do they really believe that nothing can have properties? Or are they brazen liars?


My conclusion is definitive for several reasons. The refutation by Sagnac's experiment is one of the more obvious.

Except, if you asked most physicists, they would say relativity and Sagnac are consistent.
How did you determine they are all wrong on that point?

Many physicists have rejected Relativity since the beginning, and critics of Relativity have been publishing objections ever since. How did you determine they are all wrong?

I came to the conclusion looking at Sagnac's and Einstein's papers, as well as related papers and wep-pages and debates. Here again my conclusion:

In the loop frame, the distance is one and the same for both beams: L. Neither the apparatus nor any part of it moves in the loop frame. If both light beams would travel at the same speed (as Special Relativity requires) then the measured fringe shift and the time difference would be zero:

  t- = L / c
  t+ = L / c

  t+ - t- = L / c - L / c = 0

But that's not what the detector shows.

Your question suggests that you would recommend to trust "most physicists". But why? How is that different from trusting most politicians?

One of their chief ideologists, Stephen Hawking, explains why he rejects geocentrism. It's not based on reason and not because he has scientific evidence against it. Such folks are priests against reason and not real scientists.

Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

But plenty of people have explained how the Sagnac effect works in the loop frame in SR.

I have found none convincing.

How have you determined that they are all wrong?

The correct solution for the loop frame is trivial.

What "related papers" are you referring to?

E.g. Wang et. al. (see above).

Stand-alone speedometer using two spaced laser beams

Abstract

A stand-alone speedometer directly measuring the translational speed of a moving body comprises a source emitting two spaced light beams which interfere each other, mirrors or beam splitters changing directions of propagation of light beams, and a detector measuring the phase difference of light beams. Compared with the phase difference when the speedometer is stationary, the detector measures a first-order change of phase differences, which indicates the motion speed.

Inventor: Ruyong Wang, Yi Zheng, Aiping Yao

[...] where v is the velocity of the apparatus relative to the preferred frame, c is the constant speed of light in the preferred frame [...]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7586587


The days of Special Relativity seem to be counted.


”it is impossible to detect motion by measuring differences in the speed of light” (Mantra of the Relativists)