CORRECT ANALYSIS OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT

In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
make the following mistake:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."

The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
so the correct text would be:

"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 20, 11:11, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
make the following mistake:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."

The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
so the correct text would be:

"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

Of course, the implicit assumption above is that photons' subsequent
bumping into rotating mirrors does not change their speed
additionnally (e.g. the speed of photons in the counter-rotating
direction gets even lower than c-v), which is by no means obvious.

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 20, 4:11 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
make the following mistake:


http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."

The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
so the correct text would be:

"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

Pentcho Valev


In the ring laser, four highly reflective deflecting
mirrors form a closed beam path, which in turn encloses
a square surface. When a gas mixture of helium and neon
contained in a stainless-steel tube is excited by
radio waves, the resonator turns into a laser for
two counter-rotating beams. As long as the ring laser
does not move, the beams traveling clockwise and
counterclockwise display identical frequency.
When the ring laser rotates, the frequencies differ
by an amount dependent on the speed of rotation of
the system.
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/displ...nds-in-Bavaria

"Always Knowing Precisely How Fast the Earth is Turning"
Wettzell Fundamental Research Station
http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/DB95426F0494AB1DC125717500445CEE/$File/Innovation_10_18.pdf

Professor Ulrich Schreiber of the
Munich Technical University in Germany reported that
his Earth-based, ultra-precise "G" ring laser gyroscope
was able to detect perturbations in the Earth's axis
as a result of the Indonesian earthquake.
This gyroscope--the largest of its kind in the world--contains
a giant glass ceramic disc, 4.25 meters in diameter,
25 centimeters thick and weighing 10 tons. It is located
in a sealed and pressurized chamber, eight meters below
the surface of the Earth, at the Wettzell Fundamental
Research Station in New Zealand. This instrument was
specifically designed to be able to detect changes in
the Earth's rotation within a day. For more information
on the "G" ring laser gyroscope, see a 1996 article on
the Web site of the International Society for Optical
Engineering (SPIE) or download a PDF copy of a 2003 paper
from the Wettzell Fundamental Research Station.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl_010705.html

The first system was constructed by University of
Canterbury over 1988-1991. The was dubbed C-I (for
Canterbury One). It showed that a square metre ring
laser could operate in single mode and so as a
gyroscope, and that it could be unlocked by Earth
rotation.

The FGS (Forschungsgruppe Satelliengeodäsie)
collaboration in Germany then joined with us in
a fully international collaboration. The German
partners built a far more precise and stable ring,
C-II. This was installed at Cashmere in 1997, and
developed and upgraded several times since then.
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/res...ing_2000.shtml

Sue...

On Dec 20, 12:07, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:11, Pentcho Valev wrote:

In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
make the following mistake:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."

The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
so the correct text would be:

"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

Of course, the implicit assumption above is that photons' subsequent
bumping into rotating mirrors does not change their speed
additionnally (e.g. the speed of photons in the counter-rotating
direction gets even lower than c-v), which is by no means obvious.

If one sticks to the ballistic theory and assumes that, according to
the observer at rest, the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-
rotating and c+v in the co-rotating direction all along, the following
observation is relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon
inscribed in the rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the
sides of the polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides
of the photons covered by c+v photons. This seems to be an advantage
allowing c-v photons to arrive at the end point earlier than c+v
photons. The problem is purely mathematical but its rigorous solution
seems difficult for the moment.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
: In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
: make the following mistake:
:
: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: classical and the relativistic contexts."
:
: The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: so the correct text would be:
:
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: direction."

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
: On Dec 20, 12:07, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: On Dec 20, 11:11, Pentcho Valev wrote:
:
: In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
: make the following mistake:
:
: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: classical and the relativistic contexts."
:
: The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: so the correct text would be:
:
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: direction."
:
: Of course, the implicit assumption above is that photons' subsequent
: bumping into rotating mirrors does not change their speed
: additionnally (e.g. the speed of photons in the counter-rotating
: direction gets even lower than c-v), which is by no means obvious.
:
: If one sticks to the ballistic theory and assumes that, according to
: the observer at rest, the speed of the photons is c-v in the counter-
: rotating and c+v in the co-rotating direction all along, the following
: observation is relevant. The real path of the photons is a polygon
: inscribed in the rotating circular loop. It is easy to see that the
: sides of the polygon covered by c-v photons are LONGER than the sides
: of the photons covered by c+v photons. This seems to be an advantage
: allowing c-v photons to arrive at the end point earlier than c+v
: photons. The problem is purely mathematical but its rigorous solution
: seems difficult for the moment.
:
: Pentcho Valev
:


Rotation rate w
Tangential speed wR
Speed of light in rotating frame c
Velocity of light in non-rotating frame wR+c, wR-c
Distance travelled by light in rotating frame wRt, -wRt
Distance travelled by light in non-rotating frame ct+wRt, ct-wRt

t(c+wR) = t(c-wR)
OR equivalently,
t(c+v) = t(c-v)
The times are the same, the distances are different.


Einstein set up
x' = x-vt, the transformation from the moving frame to the
stationary frame but
Einstein OMITTED
-x' = -x+vt for the return journey.

Sagnac is isomorphic to Einstein's thought experiment, but Einstein
BLUNDERED the simple algebra at schoolboy level, right he

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

He claimed the return distance is x-vt with time t = (x-vt)/(c+v)
when it is in fact t = (vt-x)/(c+v).

From this BLUNDER he calculated the cuckoo malformations that
he blamed on Lorentz and called "transformations".

The rigorous solution is NOT difficult.

"Androcles" wrote in message . uk...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
: On Dec 20, 12:07, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: On Dec 20, 11:11, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[snip irrelvancies]

Einstein set up
x' = x-vt, the transformation from the moving frame to the
stationary frame but
Einstein OMITTED
-x' = -x+vt for the return journey.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Even Pispo Valev will laugh at this :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message . uk...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
: On Dec 20, 12:07, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: On Dec 20, 11:11, Pentcho Valev wrote:

[snip irrelvancies]

Einstein set up
x' = x-vt, the transformation from the moving frame to the
stationary frame but
Einstein OMITTED
-x' = -x+vt for the return journey.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Even Pispo Valev will laugh at this :-)

Oops... almost forgot:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...inOmitted.html

Dirk Vdm

On Dec 20, 10:14 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
: In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
: make the following mistake:
:
:http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
: rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
: classical and the relativistic contexts."
:
: The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
: relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
: the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
: observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
: in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
: so the correct text would be:
:
: "Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
: then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
: the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
: point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
: direction."

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson, Tom & Jeery et. al. fail to realise is
the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.

I love infinite discussion loops.

On Dec 20, 4:11 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In discussing the Sagnac effect, both relativists and anti-relativists
make the following mistake:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c-v in the co-rotating direction and c+v in the counter-
rotating direction.....This analysis is perfectly valid in both the
classical and the relativistic contexts."

The values c-v and c+v above are "perfectly valid" only in the
relativistic context. If by "classical" the author means "Newtonian",
the analysis is by no means "perfectly valid". According to an
observer at rest, in the classical context, the speed of light is c+v
in the co-rotating direction and c-v in the counter-rotating direction
so the correct text would be:

"Quantitatively, if we let w denote the angular speed of the loop,
then the circumferential tangent speed of the end point is v = wR, and
the sum of the speeds of the wave front and the receiver at the "end"
point is c in the co-rotating direction and c in the counter-rotating
direction."

Pentcho Valev


Abstract--The famous Fizeau's interferometry experiment
with fowing water is commonly cited as a demonstration
of the velocity transformation in the special relativity.
In this investigation, by taking into account the
modification of the propagation velocity due to the
motion of dielectric medium and the modification of
the propagation length due to the Sagnac effect, an
entirely different interpretation of this experiment
is presented. Physically, the influence of the medium
velocity on the phase velocity is associated with an
effect of the polarization current. Both the medium
velocity and the Sagnac effect depend on earth's rotation,
while its influence on the phase difference
in Fizeau's experiment cancels out substantially.
http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f3c.pdf


"Always Knowing Precisely How Fast the Earth is Turning"
http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/DB95426F0494AB1DC125717500445CEE/$File/Innovation_10_18.pdf


Sue...