It is believed that the Sagnac effect exists only in circular motion. However, we have discovered that any moving path contributes to the total phase difference between two counterpropagating light beams in the loop.
---------- Physical Review Letters 93 (2004) 143901.
This was not news to me.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609235
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.143901
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v93/i14/e143901
I don't see where the authors of the paper question relativity. Please explain.
See also their earlier article:
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
See also:
http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
As this site explains the Sagnac effect is one of the geometry of space-time that doesn't distinguish between Galilean and Special relativity.
See especially:
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm
which handles some generalizations of the Sagnac effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609235
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.143901
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v93/i14/e143901
I don't see where the authors of the paper question relativity. Please explain.
See also their earlier article:
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
See also:
http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
As this site explains the Sagnac effect is one of the geometry of space-time that doesn't distinguish between Galilean and Special relativity.
See especially:
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm
which handles some generalizations of the Sagnac effect.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 28 2012, 02:08 PM)
I don't see where the authors of the paper question relativity. Please explain.
See also their earlier article:
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
"The travel-time difference Δt = 2vΔl/c2 in our experiment is independent of the refractive index n, as in the Sagnac type experiment. It implies that the same should occur in vacuum (refractive index n = 1), which could be tested by using a FOC with a hollow-core single-mode fiber in which light is guided in vacuum or in air [9]. The analysis of the implication of travel-time difference in a uniformly moving vacuum light-guide to the propagation of light in vacuum will be very interesting."
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003); http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
What does it imply? ----- The light speed in free space is not isotropic?
See also their earlier article:
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
"The travel-time difference Δt = 2vΔl/c2 in our experiment is independent of the refractive index n, as in the Sagnac type experiment. It implies that the same should occur in vacuum (refractive index n = 1), which could be tested by using a FOC with a hollow-core single-mode fiber in which light is guided in vacuum or in air [9]. The analysis of the implication of travel-time difference in a uniformly moving vacuum light-guide to the propagation of light in vacuum will be very interesting."
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003); http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
What does it imply? ----- The light speed in free space is not isotropic?
No -- it implies that the geometric effect of moving the goal posts has a geometric effect on distance-time studies.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 28 2012, 02:08 PM)
This was not news to me.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609235
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.143901
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v93/i14/e143901
I don't see where the authors of the paper question relativity. Please explain.
See also their earlier article:
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
See also:
http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
As this site explains the Sagnac effect is one of the geometry of space-time that doesn't distinguish between Galilean and Special relativity.
See especially:
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm
which handles some generalizations of the Sagnac effect.
I know this is off topic but Kevin Brown is the bomb.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609235
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.143901
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v93/i14/e143901
I don't see where the authors of the paper question relativity. Please explain.
See also their earlier article:
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
See also:
http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
As this site explains the Sagnac effect is one of the geometry of space-time that doesn't distinguish between Galilean and Special relativity.
See especially:
http://mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm
which handles some generalizations of the Sagnac effect.
I know this is off topic but Kevin Brown is the bomb.
QUOTE (sciencewatch+Jul 28 2012, 05:49 PM)
"The travel-time difference Δt = 2vΔl/c2 in our experiment is independent of the refractive index n, as in the Sagnac type experiment. It implies that the same should occur in vacuum (refractive index n = 1), which could be tested by using a FOC with a hollow-core single-mode fiber in which light is guided in vacuum or in air [9]. The analysis of the implication of travel-time difference in a uniformly moving vacuum light-guide to the propagation of light in vacuum will be very interesting."
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003); http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
What does it imply? ----- The light speed in free space is not isotropic?
Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS
Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer. The Global Positioning System (GPS) shows that the speed of light in the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) non-rotating frame remains at c relative to the frame—but not relative to an observer or receiver moving in that frame. When a GPS receiver changes its translation speed relative to the ECI frame, the speed of light measured relative to the receiver changes. A crucial experiment of the constancy of the speed of light relative to a moving receiver could be conducted in the following way: Let two GPS satellites and two airplanes be positioned in a straight line. Let the two airplanes travel at the same speed directly toward one of the two satellites and directly away from the other satellite. The travel time differences of GPS signals arriving at the two airplanes is measured and recorded with the airplanes flying first toward one of the satellites and then flying the opposite direction toward the other satellite. The travel time differences obtained as the airplanes fly in opposite directions are compared. If the travel time difference is the same when the velocity of the airplanes is changed, then the speed of light is indeed constant relative to the moving airplanes, otherwise it is not. The calculation using the GPS range equation and the results of a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) differential GPS test have shown that the constancy of the speed of light relative to moving airplanes is not correct. The change of the time difference could reach about 10 ns for subsonic airplanes and 30 ns for supersonic airplanes. The result of this crucial experiment is not only important scientifically, but also indicates the possibility of a new way to directly measure vehicle speed relative to the ECI frame.
Phys. Lett. A 312, 7 (2003); http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
What does it imply? ----- The light speed in free space is not isotropic?
Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS
Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer. The Global Positioning System (GPS) shows that the speed of light in the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) non-rotating frame remains at c relative to the frame—but not relative to an observer or receiver moving in that frame. When a GPS receiver changes its translation speed relative to the ECI frame, the speed of light measured relative to the receiver changes. A crucial experiment of the constancy of the speed of light relative to a moving receiver could be conducted in the following way: Let two GPS satellites and two airplanes be positioned in a straight line. Let the two airplanes travel at the same speed directly toward one of the two satellites and directly away from the other satellite. The travel time differences of GPS signals arriving at the two airplanes is measured and recorded with the airplanes flying first toward one of the satellites and then flying the opposite direction toward the other satellite. The travel time differences obtained as the airplanes fly in opposite directions are compared. If the travel time difference is the same when the velocity of the airplanes is changed, then the speed of light is indeed constant relative to the moving airplanes, otherwise it is not. The calculation using the GPS range equation and the results of a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) differential GPS test have shown that the constancy of the speed of light relative to moving airplanes is not correct. The change of the time difference could reach about 10 ns for subsonic airplanes and 30 ns for supersonic airplanes. The result of this crucial experiment is not only important scientifically, but also indicates the possibility of a new way to directly measure vehicle speed relative to the ECI frame.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 28 2012, 02:08 PM)
I don't see where the authors of the paper question relativity. Please explain.
First-Order Fiber-Interferometric Experiments for Crucial Test of Light-Speed Constancy
To be honest, every person who is familiar with the GPS could immediately tell that the receiver B would receive the signal earlier than receiver A would, and the lead is about 6 ns (1.7m/c). Therefore, our relativistic physicist friends would probably not accept this as a good definition of the light-speed constancy. Here, we challenge the relativistic physicists: please don’t try to make the light-speed constancy un-definable. If you care to define that the speed of light is the same for any moving observer, we will design a GPS experiment to show it is not the truth. Give us a clear definition, and we will disprove it.
First-Order Fiber-Interferometric Experiments for Crucial Test of Light-Speed Constancy
To be honest, every person who is familiar with the GPS could immediately tell that the receiver B would receive the signal earlier than receiver A would, and the lead is about 6 ns (1.7m/c). Therefore, our relativistic physicist friends would probably not accept this as a good definition of the light-speed constancy. Here, we challenge the relativistic physicists: please don’t try to make the light-speed constancy un-definable. If you care to define that the speed of light is the same for any moving observer, we will design a GPS experiment to show it is not the truth. Give us a clear definition, and we will disprove it.
interesting
QUOTE (sciencewatch+Jul 28 2012, 06:49 PM)
Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS
Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer.
This paper is querying the most basic and well-established results of tensor calculus. The work is simply wrong and should not be published, anywhere.
Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer.
This paper is querying the most basic and well-established results of tensor calculus. The work is simply wrong and should not be published, anywhere.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 28 2012, 02:08 PM)
This was not news to me.
I don't see where the authors of the paper question relativity. Please explain.
Successful GPS Operations Contradict the Two Principles of Special Relativity and Imply a New Way for Inertial Navigation – Measuring Speed Directly
I don't see where the authors of the paper question relativity. Please explain.
Successful GPS Operations Contradict the Two Principles of Special Relativity and Imply a New Way for Inertial Navigation – Measuring Speed Directly
QUOTE (sciencewatch+Jul 29 2012, 03:59 AM)
Successful GPS Operations Contradict the Two Principles of Special Relativity and Imply a New Way for Inertial Navigation – Measuring Speed Directly
Heard that bullshit before.
Heard that bullshit before.
QUOTE (brucep+Jul 29 2012, 04:41 AM)
Heard that bullshit before.
It is believed that the Sagnac effect exists only in circular motion. However, we have discovered that any moving path contributes to the total phase difference between two counterpropagating light beams in the loop.
---------- Physical Review Letters 93 (2004) 143901.
And this?
It is believed that the Sagnac effect exists only in circular motion. However, we have discovered that any moving path contributes to the total phase difference between two counterpropagating light beams in the loop.
---------- Physical Review Letters 93 (2004) 143901.
And this?
QUOTE (sciencewatch+Jul 29 2012, 04:50 AM)
It is believed that the Sagnac effect exists only in circular motion. However, we have discovered that any moving path contributes to the total phase difference between two counterpropagating light beams in the loop.
---------- Physical Review Letters 93 (2004) 143901.
And this?
Submit your discovery for peer review and do the experiment. Pleading for acceptance in a public science forum is for crackpots. What you believe isn't worth anything here.
---------- Physical Review Letters 93 (2004) 143901.
And this?
Submit your discovery for peer review and do the experiment. Pleading for acceptance in a public science forum is for crackpots. What you believe isn't worth anything here.
QUOTE (sciencewatch+Jul 29 2012, 04:50 AM)
It is believed that the Sagnac effect exists only in circular motion.
It is "believed" by whom? By people ignorant on the physics explanation of the effect? The effect exists for all closed loops where there are counterpropagating beams of light. The SHAPE of the loop is irrelvant. The effect is the basis of Fiber Optics Gyros and Ring Laser Gyros. In the case of the later, the path is NEVER circular, it is a polygon.
As to the claim made by R. Wang (in the crak journal called Galilean Electrodynamics), that his experiment might somehow demonstrate anisotropic light speed, this is easily refured by noting that the effect is based on "closing" speed since the "target" moves "away" from one light beam and "towards" the other light beam.
It is "believed" by whom? By people ignorant on the physics explanation of the effect? The effect exists for all closed loops where there are counterpropagating beams of light. The SHAPE of the loop is irrelvant. The effect is the basis of Fiber Optics Gyros and Ring Laser Gyros. In the case of the later, the path is NEVER circular, it is a polygon.
As to the claim made by R. Wang (in the crak journal called Galilean Electrodynamics), that his experiment might somehow demonstrate anisotropic light speed, this is easily refured by noting that the effect is based on "closing" speed since the "target" moves "away" from one light beam and "towards" the other light beam.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.