[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Why drag this up again.

Let me pose the question as I did in a previous discussion . If the Sagnac effect is as what you claim it is, then why does the MM test produce a null result.

And please don't cherry pick data as you did previously by quoting Miller's results.

The Sagnac effect is well understood. GPS satellites are corrected for the Sagnac effect for the reasons I gave in the previous discussion.

It has "absolutely" nothing to do with a preferential frame.

http://areeweb.polito.it/ricerca/rel...os/ashby_d.pdf

Regards

Steven

Steven, from your paper:

In the GPS, the Sagnac effect arises because the primary reference frame of interest for navigation is the rotating Earth-Centered, Earth- Fixed frame, whereas the speed of light is constant in a locally inertial frame, the Earth-Centered Inertial frame.

You still fail to grasp the setup of the experimental apparatus. Even in this paper they mention that the Sagnac effect is due to analysis when analyzed relative to an external frame!

This is simply not part of the original Sagnac experimental setup. Please see his original paper or the analysis of Professor Paul Marmet (late) from above.

Originally Posted by other

In this case, the "infrared film" needed was provided by Sagnac in 1913, when he looked for the aether with an interferometer that rotated, instead of translating in a near-straight line. Something caused his fringes to shift as viewed on the rotating platform, and these shifts meant that the velocity of light was remaining constant relative to the laboratory. Sagnac advanced this as experimental proof against the second postulate of SR, which it actually was. His method has been modified and repeated many times since his day, and currently is being tested constantly among the satellites of the Global Positioning System (GPS). Every single time, when rotation of a light path within a surrounding dominant coordinate system occurs, fringes are shifted, light velocities are altered, and the existence of a luminiferous aether is strongly inferred--all contrary to SR.

Establishment physicists have usually ignored the Sagnac effect, or once in a while they have attempted to explain it in terms of special or general relativity--but all of these attempts have fallen short.

Why? Because the question was asked and many do take Sagnac's experimental results seriously.

Regarding MM, please take a look at the light path setup of the original Sagnac experiment, it will always give a far greater result, than the MM setup. The light path geometry of this is clear. Although yes please see Marmet again with regard to MM.

Best,