MICHELSON-MORLEY AND SAGNAC EXPERIMENTS

On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.

Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.

Only SR passes both tests.

Paul

Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."

Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light, as clever hypnotists teach:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

If, Andersen Andersen, you want the Michelson-Morley experiment to
stop confirming Newton's theory and start confirming special
relativity, you should do what Divine Albert did. First, you introduce
Divine Albert's light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Then Andersen Andersen you obtain miracles (time dilation, length
contraction etc.) and those miracles will miraculously transform the
Michelson-Morley experiment for you: from now on the Michelson-Morley
experiment will refute Newton's theory and confirm special relativity.

Perhaps Andersen Andersen you should interpret the Sagnac experiment
in an analogous way. Perhaps basically this experiment confirms c'=c
+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular theory of light, and only
miracles can miraculously transform the Sagnac experiment so that it
could start refuting Newton's theory and confirming special
relativity. Think about it Andersen Andersen.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev skrev:
On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.

Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.

Only SR passes both tests.

Paul

Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."

Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light,

I have moved further from:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.

via:
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.

to:
Only SR passes both tests.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Pentcho Valev skrev:
: On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
: wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
: The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
: and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
:
: Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
: and falsifies emission theory.
:
: Only SR passes both tests.
:
: Paul
:
: Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
: is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
: Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
: experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
: by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
: of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
: particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
: gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
: carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
: that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
: thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
:
: Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
: experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
: theory of light,
:
: I have moved further from:
: The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
: and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
:
: via:
: Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
: and falsifies emission theory.
:
: to:
: Only SR passes both tests.
:
: Paul

Moved further backwards, obviously.

On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.

Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.

Only SR passes both tests.

Paul

Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."

Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light,

I have moved further from:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.

via:
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.

to:
Only SR passes both tests.

Paul

Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
theory. You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission
theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation and
length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops confirming
the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.

Sagnac experiment and Michelson-Morley experiment have to be
consistent Andersen Andersen. This means that, in the absence of the
additional assumptions - time dilation and length contraction - Sagnac
experimwent must confirm the emission theory, like the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Otherwise Andersen Andersen you will have to
explain why Sagnac experiment and Michelson-Morley experiment are not
consistent. Think about it Andersen Andersen.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev skrev:
On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light,

I have moved further from:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.

via:
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.

to:
Only SR passes both tests.

Paul

Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
theory.

It's very simple, indeed.

According to SR, the speed of light is isotropic in the lab frame.
Thus SR predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer is
rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
SR confirmed.

According to the emission theory, the speed of light is isotropic
in the lab frame where the source is stationary.
Thus the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer
is rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
Emission theory confirmed.

You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission
theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation and
length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops confirming
the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.

Why would you introduce 'additional assumptions" about anything?
There is no reason to use any other frame than the lab frame.
There are no time dilations or Lorentz contractions in this frame.

Sagnac experiment and Michelson-Morley experiment have to be
consistent Andersen Andersen. This means that, in the absence of the
additional assumptions - time dilation and length contraction - Sagnac
experimwent must confirm the emission theory, like the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Otherwise Andersen Andersen you will have to
explain why Sagnac experiment and Michelson-Morley experiment are not
consistent. Think about it Andersen Andersen.

What is this confused babble supposed to mean?
MMX and Sagnac are two different experiments, testing different
aspects of the theories.

In case you do not know the difference, here it is:
In the MMX the area enclosed by the light beams is zero.
That means that neither SR nor the emission theory predicts
any fringe shifts _while the interferometer is rotating_.
But the MMX interferometer isn't rotating. It is rotated
to different orientations, but it is stationary while
the measurements are done.

In the Sagnac experiment, the light beams enclose an area,
and the measured effect is proportional to the enclosed area.
The Sagnac ring is rotating _while the measurements are made_.
The fringe shifts are measured to be proportional with
the angular velocity of the ring.

Read the following again. No 'additional assumptions' are made.
No time dilations, no Lorentz contractions.

I challenge you to point out an error in my calculations.

The Sagnac experiment:
- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

Prediction according to SR:
---------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c.
The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasurably different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Prediction correct, SR confirmed.

Prediction according to the emission theory:
--------------------------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c+v.
The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c-v.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*(c+v)
tf = 2*pi*r/c

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*(c-v)
tb = 2*pi*r/c

delta_t = tf - tb = 0

So emission theory predicts delta_t = 0, while enumerable practical
experiments shows delta_t = 4Aw/c^2

Prediction wrong - emission theory falsified.

Paul

On 18 Sept, 03:33, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:





On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:

On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light,
I have moved further from:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.

via:
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.

to:
Only SR passes both tests.

Paul

Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
theory.

It's very simple, indeed.

According to SR, the speed of light is isotropic in the lab frame.
Thus SR predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer is
rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
SR confirmed.

According to the emission theory, the speed of light is isotropic
in the lab frame where the source is stationary.
Thus the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer
is rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
Emission theory confirmed.

You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission

theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation and
length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops confirming
the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.

Why would you introduce 'additional assumptions" about anything?
There is no reason to use any other frame than the lab frame.
There are no time dilations or Lorentz contractions in this frame.

No more time for zombie education.

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 17, 5:33 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
Prediction according to the emission theory:
--------------------------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c+v.
The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c-v.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*(c+v)
tf = 2*pi*r/c

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*(c-v)
tb = 2*pi*r/c

delta_t = tf - tb = 0

So emission theory predicts delta_t = 0, while enumerable practical
experiments shows delta_t = 4Aw/c^2

Prediction wrong - emission theory falsified.

Paul

Very nice . As an aside, the ET is falsified by the Ives-Stilwell
experiment as well. The score at halftime:

SR : 2 - ET : 0

:-)

Pentcho Valev skrev:
On 18 Sept, 03:33, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:





On 16 Sept, 22:32, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev skrev:
On 12 Sept, 10:00, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Bravo Andersen! Your interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment
is remarkable. All other zombies and most of the hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult still believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment is essential in refuting the variable speed of light given
by Newton's corpuscular theory of light and establishing the constancy
of the speed of light (Einstein's light postulate):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of
particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by
gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment,
carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed
that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."
Now Andersen you should move further. Basically the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirms c'=c+v, the implication of Newton's corpuscular
theory of light,
I have moved further from:
The MMX confirmes SR and emission theory,
and falsifies a 'Michelson type' ether theory.
via:
Sagnac confirms SR and a 'Michelson type' ether theory,
and falsifies emission theory.
to:
Only SR passes both tests.
Paul
Zombie bold again, zombie repeats what zombie knows. Before moving
further from the Michelson-Morley experiment Andersen Andersen you
should explain how it confirms both special relativity and emission
theory.
It's very simple, indeed.

According to SR, the speed of light is isotropic in the lab frame.
Thus SR predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer is
rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
SR confirmed.

According to the emission theory, the speed of light is isotropic
in the lab frame where the source is stationary.
Thus the emission theory predicts no fringe shifts when the interferometer
is rotated to different angles, which is in accordance with experiment.
Emission theory confirmed.

You may discover that, basically, it confirms the emission

theory; after introducing additional assumptions - time dilation and
length contraction - the Michelson-Morley experiment stops confirming
the emission theory and starts confirming special relativity.
Why would you introduce 'additional assumptions" about anything?
There is no reason to use any other frame than the lab frame.
There are no time dilations or Lorentz contractions in this frame.

No more time for zombie education.

Doesn't the zombie want to be educated?
Is that why he snipped the following?

MMX and Sagnac are two different experiments, testing different
aspects of the theories.

In case you do not know the difference, here it is:
In the MMX the area enclosed by the light beams is zero.
That means that neither SR nor the emission theory predicts
any fringe shifts _while the interferometer is rotating_.
But the MMX interferometer isn't rotating. It is rotated
to different orientations, but it is stationary while
the measurements are done.

In the Sagnac experiment, the light beams enclose an area,
and the measured effect is proportional to the enclosed area.
The Sagnac ring is rotating _while the measurements are made_.
The fringe shifts are measured to be proportional with
the angular velocity of the ring.

Read the following again. No 'additional assumptions' are made.
No time dilations, no Lorentz contractions.

I challenge you to point out an error in my calculations.

The Sagnac experiment:
- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this non-rotating frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

Prediction according to SR:
---------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c.
The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c2 - v2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r2, g = (1 - v2/c2)-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c2)* g2

The g2 will obviously be unmeasurably different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Prediction correct, SR confirmed.

Prediction according to the emission theory:
--------------------------------------------
The speed of the light emitted in the forward direction is c+v.
The speed of the light emitted in the backward direction is c-v.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*(c+v)
tf = 2*pi*r/c

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*(c-v)
tb = 2*pi*r/c

delta_t = tf - tb = 0

So emission theory predicts delta_t = 0, while enumerable practical
experiments shows delta_t = 4Aw/c2

Prediction wrong - emission theory falsified.

Paul

Que el experimento de Michelson-Morley (1887) únicamente demuestra lo
poco científicios que eran tanto Michelson como Morley.

Que si la Tierra era plana, que si la Tierra no giraba, que si la
Tierra no estaba inclinada respecto a la eclíptica, que si el
experimento se hacía en el vacío (se hacía en el AIRE), que si los
resultados con valor imaginario obtenidos de la velocidad de la Tierra
se podian restar de los valores reales positivos, etc.

J'ecris en Espagnol, parce que je ne compris pas l'anglais.

On 21 sep, 13:05, Xaustein wrote:
Que el experimento de Michelson-Morley (1887) únicamente demuestra lo
poco científicios que eran tanto Michelson como Morley.

Que si la Tierra era plana, que si la Tierra no giraba, que si la
Tierra no estaba inclinada respecto a la eclíptica, que si el
experimento se hacía en el vacío (se hacía en el AIRE), que si los
resultados con valor imaginario obtenidos de la velocidad de la Tierra
se podian restar de los valores reales positivos, etc.

J'ecris en Espagnol, parce que je ne compris pas l'anglais.


Vamos a ver: De repente hay el experimeto de "Sagnac", resulta que
yo plantee en su dia el experimento de la fibra optieca que
cicunvalaba el ecuador, y el Sagnac este no aparecia por ninguna
parte, con lo que tengo la sospecha que me han copiado el experimeto y
me gustaria saber la fechas de publicación de este señor el tal
Sagnac. Yo tengo publicado en las News sin tener conocimiento de este
señor. Quiero saber si me ha copiado. ¿Como lo investigamos?

Saludos.