Sagnac’s experiment disproving Special Relativity and the constant ‘speed of light’.

The 'Sagnac Effect' is a scientific law which confirms an 'ether' and completely overturns Relativity and the constant speed of light dogma. $cientism.

Introduction: ignore the evidence

There is a long list of experiments which have disproven Relativity, which was conceived as an attempt to explain why mechanical experiments could not prove a moving, or even a rotating Earth.  These are not discussed, taught, and are largely unknown.  One such experiment which the Relativists cannot answer is that of the French physicist Georges Sagnac, and his 1913 interferometer calculations.  ‘Modern science’ simply brushes Sagnac under the carpet as they do with any replicable experimentation which disproves Special Relativity. Few Phd’s in Physics have ever heard of Georges Sagnac.

Sagnac was a professor of theoretical physics at the University of Paris.  He was a Copernican and Sun worshipper.  Sagnac is never taught in schools, yet in his day he enjoyed renown.  Sagnac assisted Pierre Curie in determining the properties of radium and the discovery of secondary X-rays and various other optical effects.  He was part of the scientific establishment and a contemporary of one of France’s top physicists, the Catholic Pierre Duhem, who had the temerity to challenge the ‘consensus’ and whose Catholicism offended the small group of atheists that ran French ‘science’.  Duhem was ostracized and sent to the University of Bordeaux and denied access to materials.  Free speech, open science and all that.  Sagnac suffered no such fate, he was part of ‘The Science’ until he began to question Relativity.

Gospels

Sagnac’s interferometer results have been repeated several times, so it is very strange why ‘The Science’ has been so averse to publicizing Sagnac’s work the same way they advertise Einstein’s gospel as the only true path to salvation in science.⁽¹⁾  An interferometer is an instrument which measures small movements, distances, and displacements by using interfering light beams. It is one of the few methods to calculate the speed of light.

One reason why ‘The Science’ ignores Sagnac is that he confirmed the astonishing results of the Michelson-Morely interferometer calculations, proving what dozens of others had also found.  Namely, that through the use of interfering light beam observations physicists could only detect a ~3 km to 8 km per second movement of the Earth, not the 30 km/sec that Copernicans expected.  This rate of motion is what would be expected given the drag on the Earth from the ether but this is anathema to the religion of ‘The Science’ (see Sir Oliver Lodge in 1897 (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 189, 149 (1897); R. Anderson, et al., American Journal of Physics, 62, 975, 1994). Below we will discuss the gymnastics that ‘The Science’ goes through to try to explain these disproofs of Relativity and the speed of light.

The Experiment

Sagnac used the standard interferometer methodology, which is also what Michelson and Morley and many others had utilized (see here for a list), to generate results that forced Einstein to come up with ‘Relativity’.  Einstein’s theory purports to explain that we can’t measure the motion of the Earth against a fixed reference frame because the Earth and the planets are in motion and perforce a fixed frame of reference, for example ‘space’ as used by Newton, or the ‘Earth’ by geocentrists, does not exist (this is a false premise as outlined in many places on this substack).  Sagnac explains what he did:

“I cause to revolve uniformly, at one or two revolutions per second, around a vertical axis, a horizontal platform (50 centimeters in diameter) carrying, solidly screwed down, the various pieces of an interferometer similar to that which I have used in my previous researches and described in 1910.

The two interfering beams, reflected by four mirrors placed at the edge of the revolving platform, are superimposed in opposite directions upon one self-same horizontal circuit encompassing a definite area S.

The rotating assemblage includes also the luminous source (a small electric lamp), and the receiver – a fine-grained photographic plate, which registers the interference fringes localized at the focus of a telescope. Photographs designated cw are obtained during a clockwise rotation of the platform; photos designated ccw are obtained during a counter-clockwise rotation of the same frequency. In these two kinds of photos, the center of the central fringe presents two different positions. I measure this displacement of the center of interference.” (Comptes Rendus de l’ Académie des Sciences (Paris) 157, 1913, pp. 708-710)

The difference between the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac experiment is that Michelson-Morley directed the light beam to traverse back and forth along the diameter of a rotating table.  Sagnac on the other hand, directed the light beam to travel in a closed circle around a rotating table.  This means that:

·       The Michelson-Morley experiment sought detect the translational movement of the Earth.  Translational motion means that all points in an object are moving uniformly in the same direction with no change in orientation on any of the points.  An example is a train on a track moving in one direction, or the Earth in orbit around the Sun.  However, Michelson-Morley could find no translational movement of the Earth. 

·       Sagnac attempted to detect the rotation of the Earth.  His results are explained below and they imitate and support the conclusions of a non-mobile Earth as evidenced by Michelson-Morley. 

Heliocentricty and Scientism (part 3). Georges Sagnac and the ‘Sagnac effect’, which entirely upends Relativity, despite what 'The Science' claims.

Ether and elapsed time

Let’s pause and consider the ether.  In other posts the ‘ether’ has been discussed (for example Einstein admitted an ether exists in General Relativity).  It is clear that ‘space’ is full of particles and forces, including the Coriolis force, and that a ‘vacuum’ of literally nothing, does not exist.  Logically if we are trying to measure the motion of this planet, there must be an elapsed time of propagation between any two points being measured due to the aforementioned forces or what is termed an ‘ether drag’, sometimes called the ‘ether wind’.  This ‘drag’ or ‘wind’ would push away light waves in the same way that an atmospheric wind blows away sound waves.  

If the above is true, it is also logical to state that the observation of the optical effect of such a relative ‘ether wind’ would constitute evidence for the ether, just as the observation of the influence of the relative wind of the atmosphere on the speed of sound in a system in motion constitutes evidence of the existence of the atmosphere around the system in movement.  This is precisely what Michelson-Morley found, namely evidence of the ether drag or wind registering a movement against the Earth of between 3 and 8 km/second.  Scientifically we cannot deny that an atmosphere exists based on the evidence of its impact on sound.  Interferometer experiments are plainly stating the same about the ether drag on the Earth.

Sagnac’s Results

Sagnac’s results, replicated many times, are simply shocking for ‘The Science’ to consider.

It has been very easy for me to find at the outset the evidence for the ether by causing a small optical circuit to rotate. A frequency N of 2 revolutions per second (successively in each direction) has furnished me a degree of relative whirling of the ether of 4πN or 25 radians per second. A uniform clockwise rotation of the interferograph produces, relatively, a counter-clockwise ether wind….The distance between the fringes is here from 0.5 to 1 millimeter….The observed interference effect is clearly the optical whirling effect due to the movement of the system in relation to the ether and directly manifests the existence of the ether, supporting necessarily the light waves of Huygens and of Fresnel (Comptes Rendus, ibid. In a more detailed explanation in the Comptes Rendus of December 22, 1913, pp. 1410-1413).

Sagnac proved the existence of the ether, which was already demonstrated by Huygens (1690), Fresnel (1853) and many others.  Let’s pause here and consider what he means by ‘null effects’.  The null values are also found in the Michelson-Morley experiment, and deeply troubled the science establishment and Einstein:

The total interferential displacement z is a constant fraction of the distance between fringes, for the same frequency N of rotation. The displacement becomes invisible on the photographs when the fringes have been adjusted to be narrow enough. Such a nullified result demonstrates that the normally observed displacement is clearly due to a difference of phase associated with the rotational movement of the system (Comptes Rendus, ibid)

What does this mean?  In essence Sagnac proved that because one of the light beams took a longer time to reach the mirror moving away from it than the other light beam whose mirror was moving toward it.  This null effect overturns the postulate of Special Relativity which claims that the speed of light is the same for all observers. This claim is utterly wrong.  Yes, read that again.  Special Relativity is a fiction. 

Let’s explain this further.  In Sagnac’s experiment there were 2 different speeds for the light beams travelling the same distance.  What is making the one beam travel slower?  Sagnac wrote that the ‘ether’ was responsible for this phenomenon.  The ether drag or wind, was created by the rotation of the table.  This drag or resistance, impedes the velocity of the light beam.  So predictable and precise are these results that the ‘Sagnac effect’ is used routinely in today’s technology for the purpose of sensing rotation, as well as in mechanical gyroscopes.  

Sagnac’s effect

This ‘effect’ was also predicted in 1904 by Michelson himself, who wrote that observers on Earth, if they are co-moving and co-rotating with the light source and screen, will observe an interference pattern that is dependent on the absolute rotation of the system (Philosophical Magazine, London, sixth series, 8, 1904, pp. 716-719).  This is what Sagnac demonstrated in 1913, using a laboratory turntable with two mechanical receivers instead of two human observers.  Sagnac’s interferometer is the ‘observer’, and its light source and reflecting mirrors were all co-moving and co-rotating in one and the same fixed system.

What Sagnac added from outside this system was to put his turntable into motion imitating the rotation of the Earth.  The interferometer is still the ‘observer’, recording the fringe shifts in the moving system, proving that the speed of light is inconstant due to an ether drag.  As one would expect, ‘The Science’ won’t have any of this.

Contortions by ‘The Science’

How does the scientific establishment, with their money, power and relevancy premised on Special Relativity respond to such proofs?  Slander, vitriol, violence, philosophical explanations, verbal gymnastics, and then eventually, a handwaving dismissal and burying the evidence which contradicts their religion.  The following are the usual explanations one finds littered in Star-chamber-approved books, and chatbot replies:

1.      Special Relativity does not work for rotating systems;

2.      Special Relativity does work in rotating systems, and we need to add in foreign elements belonging to General Relativity, such as ‘metric tensors’

3.      The rotation of the table means that the discrepancy between the two light beams is purely mechanical⁽²⁾

None of these are sensible.  If SR does not work for rotating systems the entire theory is illogical and invalid, after all that is what it was created to explain.  If SR only works by adding in GR and mathematical models without mechanical proof it again means that it is false, especially given that GR is premised on an ether.  Third, the explanation that there are mechanical issues with the experiment is plainly ridiculous given that the ‘observer’ is outside the system and the mirrors are not in motion and are turning with the apparatus.  This means that the observer can measure the absolute motion differences of the two light beams.

The 'Speed of Light' is probably not right: an introduction.

Consequences and proofs

There is a very important consequence of Sagnac’s experiment.  In light of the experiment’s clear demonstration of absolute motion, physicists of the Copernican yet non-Relativity variety have commonly interpreted Sagnac’s results as being evidence for the absolute rotation of the Earth.  From their cosmological perspective, this conclusion is certainly understandable.  But as other posts in this substack have shown, this is simply a bias and not a scientific claim. 

Other evidence by Arago, Airy et al and their stellar aberration experiments, show that the Earth is not moving diurnally or daily.  That is at least what their experiments show regardless of one’s worldview or belief systems. If we view Sagnac’s experiment through this lens our conclusions are vastly different.  We would then say that Sagnac’s results would be positive proof for the absolute rotation of the universe around the Earth, as well as for the existence of ether and absolute space.  In other words, there is no proof from these mechanical experiments that the Earth is moving around the Sun.  You might well argue (and could be right), that the Earth is moving around the Sun, but Sagnac’s experiment does not help you. 

Sagnac’s ‘effect’ is to quote Einstein, a ‘postulate’ or law, which is ignored by ‘The Science’.  Sagnac’s results bring science back to the Maxwell-Fresnel-Arago-Airy ether. The conclusions are so solid and irrefutable that current physics must use Sagnac’s discovery to make their Relativistic formulas function!  Further:

(1)   Our Global Positioning Systems cannot function properly without adjustments based upon Sagnac’s experimental results;

(2)   For inertial navigation, or when an absolute frame from which to measure all other coordinates is necessary, the Sagnac effect is always included;

(3)   Ring laser experiments have confirmed the Sagnac effect to within one part in 10²⁰, a truly remarkable verification⁽³⁾;

(4)   It is proven that in the Earth’s northern hemisphere the counter-clockwise light beam travels faster than the clockwise beam, but in the southern hemisphere, the clockwise light beam travels faster than the counter-clockwise beam, proving that an external force is acting on the Earth and the only force that is known to go in opposite directions with respect to its operation in a hemisphere of the Earth is the Coriolis.

Bottom Line

The Sagnac effect is a proven and implemented law.  It completely negates Special Relativity and disproves the constancy of the speed of light.  This means that much of modern cosmology; physics and the Big Bang is wrong.  The Sagnac effect also irrefutably supports the ether drag and wind which contradicts mainstream cosmology.  With confidence we can claim:

(1)   The Sagnac effect is a universal principle for all electromagnetic counter-propagating beams;

(2)   It is the main principle to explain neutron beams, de Broglie waves and sound waves;

(3)   It explains why waves travel in opposite paths;

(4)   It explains why various beams and waves show the same time differences, both for matter and light, independent of the physical nature of the interference;

(5)   It disproves the constant speed of light;

(6)   It proves the ether drag and the Coriolis phenomena.

The Sagnac effect is not dependent on the nature of light per se, and does not care if light is a wave, particles or a mixture of both. The Sagnac effect is based solely on the principle of absolute motion.  This means that the ‘Sagnac effect’ demolishes the concept of ‘Relativity’ which denies absolute motion and references and it also disproves the speed of light dogma. The next post will discuss the implications if the speed of light constant is false.

==

⁽¹⁾ Notable exceptions to the censorship of Sagnac include: E. J. Post in Reviews of Modern Physics 39, 1967, pp. 475-493; Herbert Goldstein, Classical Mechanics, 1980; and Stefan Marinov in Foundations of Physics 8, 1978, pp. 137-156. The first to suggest a Sagnac-type rotating interferometer was Sir Oliver Lodge in 1897 (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 189, 149 (1897).

⁽²⁾ Verbal gymnastics to explain away the Sagnac postulate can be found in:  W. Schleich and M. O. Skully, “Course 10: General Relativity and Modern Optics,” New Trends in Atomic Physics, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam-New York, 1982; M. A. Tonnelat, Les principes de la théorie électromagnétique et de la relativité, Masson, Paris, 1959; Oyvind Grøn, “Relativistic Description of a Rotating Disk,” American Journal of Physics 43, 10:869f, 1975; G. Rizzi and M. Ruggiero, Relativity in Rotating Frames, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 203; G. Rizzi and A. Tartaglia, “Speed of Light on Rotating Platforms,” Foundational Physics, 28:1663, 1998; Berenda, “The Problem of the Rotating Disk,” Physical Review 62:280f, 1942; Ashtekar and Magnon, “The Sagnac Effect in General Relativity,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 16, 2:341, 1975; J. –F. Pascual Sánchez et al., “Geometry of an Accelerated Rotating Disk,” Universidad de Valladolid, Spain, 2003

⁽³⁾ See the Canterbury Project. Some of the many reports include:  H. R. Bilger, G. E. Stedman, Ziyuan Li, U. Schreiber and M. Schneider, Ring lasers for geodesy, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement (special issue for CPEM/94: Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements, Boulder CO, June 27-July 1, 1994) 44: 468-470 etc.

nb: Many posts on this substack discuss the scientific poverty of Relativity