The 'Sagnac Effect' is a scientific law which confirms an 'ether' and completely overturns Relativity and the constant speed of light dogma. $cientism.
Thank you for all your work. I'm not in the sciences, so finding this perspective is very interesting.
I feel like this is a dumb question, but if you're willing, can you please explain why the rotation isn't put forth as the reason why the beams' speeds are unequal? I just can't get my head around this. It seems like if you move the goal posts, obviously one path becomes shorter (or more quickly reached) than the other, but why then is the aether viewed as the causal factor?
I think I understand why the experiment proves that the speed of light varies, but not why it is attributed to the aether. It seems like Sagnac is just creating a shorter and longer path for the light beams to travel.
"If the disc is spinning, the detector is moving toward one beam and away from the other, making one path physically shorter and the other longer. Isn't that just geometry?"
What this proves is the aether and dielectric around the apparatus.
A) The rotation moves the detector toward one beam and away from the other, creating a shorter path for one and a longer path for the other.
B) But here is the good part: Why does the light wave stay anchored to space while the disc spins beneath it?
If space were an empty void and light carried no connection to a medium, the light beams would be locked to the rotating platform (just like a ball thrown on a merry-go-round). Both beams would arrive back at the detector at the exact same time because the whole system is rotating together.
The fact that one beam takes longer specifically because the detector moves away from it proves that the light wave is propagating through a stationary background medium (the aether) that does not rotate with the disc. This is something the handwavers cannot explain.
-->This means that light speed is fixed relative to the medium, not relative to the apparatus spinning inside it. The 2 are distinct.
What says 'The Science'.
1-Sagnac's apparatus only applies to linear uniform motion
2-In a rotating frame, the geometry 'changes.
Again they use maths to negate a physical reality. Sagnac's equation is used in GPS systems - hardly 'linear' and those algos calculate delays.
Sagnac's formula for time difference is: change in Time (delta T in maths) = [(4) (the enclosed area) x angular velocity] / light speed squared or the wave speed.
The equation doess not have the material properties of the glass, mirrors, or platform. This means the delay depends purely on the rotation relative to the surrounding dielectric space. The light wave propagates through the spatial substrate at a speed. The physical apparatus rotates against that substrate by an angle (Omega in maths terms).
We can check this against no medium.
C) The light source, mirrors, and detector are all fixed to the same rotating platform.
D) If light had no medium and its speed was strictly tied to the emitter/detector frame, both counter-propagating beams would complete their circuit in identical time.
The fact that the light beams experience a shift or delta T above; proves that the light waves do not care about the rotation of the apparatus. So the claims of the 'Science' are again wrong. The light waves are propagating through an independent, stationary background medium (the aether) that remains at rest while the platform spins through it.
The idea of a void is so counter-intuitive that it kind of short-circuits my brain. Thank you for your response, I so appreciate the clarity!
Begging your indulgence once more, from what I grasped, the distances are measured in reference to the aether field, which is why we get faster and slower beam speeds.
By contrast, if we assume a void, then any light activity within an enclosed system (like Sagnac’s setup) operates as if its speed is invariant (which I’m noticing also happens to be equivalent to a frame at rest).
So then, is that a good way to think about Special Relativity, that it assumes the “primary” frame is at rest relative to other frames (and then that allows physicists to assign a constant speed to light)?
Thank you for all your work. I'm not in the sciences, so finding this perspective is very interesting.
I feel like this is a dumb question, but if you're willing, can you please explain why the rotation isn't put forth as the reason why the beams' speeds are unequal? I just can't get my head around this. It seems like if you move the goal posts, obviously one path becomes shorter (or more quickly reached) than the other, but why then is the aether viewed as the causal factor?
I think I understand why the experiment proves that the speed of light varies, but not why it is attributed to the aether. It seems like Sagnac is just creating a shorter and longer path for the light beams to travel.
Thanks Dave. Highly relevent, excellent question.
"If the disc is spinning, the detector is moving toward one beam and away from the other, making one path physically shorter and the other longer. Isn't that just geometry?"
What this proves is the aether and dielectric around the apparatus.
A) The rotation moves the detector toward one beam and away from the other, creating a shorter path for one and a longer path for the other.
B) But here is the good part: Why does the light wave stay anchored to space while the disc spins beneath it?
If space were an empty void and light carried no connection to a medium, the light beams would be locked to the rotating platform (just like a ball thrown on a merry-go-round). Both beams would arrive back at the detector at the exact same time because the whole system is rotating together.
The fact that one beam takes longer specifically because the detector moves away from it proves that the light wave is propagating through a stationary background medium (the aether) that does not rotate with the disc. This is something the handwavers cannot explain.
-->This means that light speed is fixed relative to the medium, not relative to the apparatus spinning inside it. The 2 are distinct.
What says 'The Science'.
1-Sagnac's apparatus only applies to linear uniform motion
2-In a rotating frame, the geometry 'changes.
Again they use maths to negate a physical reality. Sagnac's equation is used in GPS systems - hardly 'linear' and those algos calculate delays.
Sagnac's formula for time difference is: change in Time (delta T in maths) = [(4) (the enclosed area) x angular velocity] / light speed squared or the wave speed.
The equation doess not have the material properties of the glass, mirrors, or platform. This means the delay depends purely on the rotation relative to the surrounding dielectric space. The light wave propagates through the spatial substrate at a speed. The physical apparatus rotates against that substrate by an angle (Omega in maths terms).
We can check this against no medium.
C) The light source, mirrors, and detector are all fixed to the same rotating platform.
D) If light had no medium and its speed was strictly tied to the emitter/detector frame, both counter-propagating beams would complete their circuit in identical time.
The fact that the light beams experience a shift or delta T above; proves that the light waves do not care about the rotation of the apparatus. So the claims of the 'Science' are again wrong. The light waves are propagating through an independent, stationary background medium (the aether) that remains at rest while the platform spins through it.
Hope this helps.
The idea of a void is so counter-intuitive that it kind of short-circuits my brain. Thank you for your response, I so appreciate the clarity!
Begging your indulgence once more, from what I grasped, the distances are measured in reference to the aether field, which is why we get faster and slower beam speeds.
By contrast, if we assume a void, then any light activity within an enclosed system (like Sagnac’s setup) operates as if its speed is invariant (which I’m noticing also happens to be equivalent to a frame at rest).
So then, is that a good way to think about Special Relativity, that it assumes the “primary” frame is at rest relative to other frames (and then that allows physicists to assign a constant speed to light)?
Fascinating. I've heard of this, but I haven't seen such a good explanation of the Sagnac effect before.
Thanks Hans, very kind. Yes such disproofs, demonstrated by experiments such as Sagnac's, are never taught :)
I'm working my way through Ron Hatch's critique right now.
https://rumble.com/v250ogu-ron-hatch-in-the-light-of-gps-thunderbolts-project.html
I've got a copy of his Escape from Einstein, too. Very interesting.
Utterly interesting. I will have to dive into your article on the Coriolis effect next.
thank you very much for sharing. (substack is truly the place to learn, I find).