Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A case against Relativity

  1. Feb 24, 2006 #1
    You are an observer fixed in absolute space watching clocks pass between two points, A and B, separated by 1km. The moving clocks are identical in every way, and have observers aboard.

    The Sagnac clock observer is traveling at a speed of 1km/s in a circular orbit (radius 1 billion light years), so its path between A and B appears as a straight line. And the Sagnac effect requires that the speed of light must be c+v and c-v respectively (if the Sagnac observer recorded the speed of light as c, then he would not be moving in a circle).

    According to Relativity the Inertial clock observer - who is traveling in a straight line at 1km/s - records the speed of light as being c.

    You are not told which clock will pass by, but when they pass you cannot distinguish the two apart. And both clocks follow the same straight line, as your measuring device cannot detect any error in their paths.

    The case against Relativity is this:
    It is an experimentally proven fact that the Sagnac observer measures the speed of light as c+v and c-v. Otherwise the Sagnac effect would not be observed. But according to Relativity, what appears to be an identically moving observer measures the speed of light a c.

    Since we cannot distinguish between the moving clock observers in this case, they must both measure the speed of light as being the same. And it is clear that Relativity is at fault and the one-way speed of light is not c, but either c+v or c-v.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 24, 2006 #2

    It mentions relativity too, and a quick search on these forums will bring up plenty of discussion about this effect and relativity. Suffice to say, it doesn't seem you bothered researching it much because you'd have found an explaination to your conundrum within a few minutes.
  4. Feb 24, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2018 Award

    I could cite tons of papers that make use of the Sagnac effect without having to attribute it to ANY of what you mentioned - there IS a significant leap in attributing the phase shift to a change in velocity - but I'll just cite a few and ask you directly why you ignore such sources:

    1. G B Malykin, "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations", PHYS-USP, 43, 1229-1252 (2000).

    2. E.J. Post Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475–493 (1967).

    3. R. Anderson et al. Am. J. Phys 62, 975-985 (1994).

    4. W.A. Rodriguez and M. Sharif., Found. Phys. 31, 1767 (2001).

    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
  5. Feb 24, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    There's no operational way to tell if you're "fixed" or "moving" with respect to absoute space. The words here are empty of meaning except to someone who has already decided to belive in some sort of ether theory.

    But it's not really straight, is it?

    You are a bit confused here.

    The moving observer has a choice - he can use standard Einsteinian clock synchronization, in which case the speed of light will be equal to c in all directions.

    Or, he can abandon Einsteinian clock synchorinzation to use a different coordiante system. If he does this:

    1) the "speed" of light will not be c (in these coordinates, defining speed as the rate of change of the distance coordinate with respect to the time coordinate).

    2) SR won't work anymore.

    3) Newton's laws won't work anymore either (Newton's laws also require Einsteinian clock synchronization!)

    4) GR still works fine (GR is capable of dealing with arbitrary coordinate systems )

    There is nothing about moving in a gentle arc that "forces" a person moving in a gentle arc to use non-Einsteinian clock synchronization however. It's a choice they have to make for themselves.

    This is incorrect, though it is unfortunately possible to find such incorrect statements in the literature by a few authors.

    To add another paper to the list already cited as to why this is incorrect (this paper is online, but may not be the easiest read on the topic)


    (Emphasis added by me)
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
  6. Feb 24, 2006 #5
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
  7. Feb 24, 2006 #6
    Considering wisp in that thread quotes someone's Wiki contribution he's obviously used Wiki a fair bit, yet clearly ignored the actual Sagnac article which talks about how the effect meshes with relativity.

    When in doubt, put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and hum real loud ;)

    I've got to admit though, Wisp has gone a lot further into attempting to do the maths of relativity than other 'Relativity is wrong, I'm right' cranks I've come across. Still, definitely ignoring things infront of his face.
  8. Feb 24, 2006 #7
    You must try to understand the difference bettween "apparent speed" and "actual speed".

  9. Feb 24, 2006 #8
    Hi Wisp

    The Sagnac effect is based upon a different kind of experiment than MMx - in actuality, you can get the same difference c+v and c-v w/o considering rotation or curvature - its simply a consequence of the fact that the source/receiver has moved during the transit time - for example consider two mirrors A and B spaced apart a constant distance L with a source/receiver midway inbetween - then if the source/receiver is in motion toward mirror A and away from mirror B, the time required for a signal sent by the source to be returned from A will be less than the time required for the signal to be returned from the receding mirror B. In other words, you are really measuring your velocity wrt the two mirrors, not wrt the ether. In contrast, in MMx, the entire apparatus moves so the distance between the source and the reflecting mirror remains constant.
  10. Feb 24, 2006 #9
    "Wisp" knows all this, he's been told this numerous times, by numerous people on different forums. It will lead nowhere since he's one of those people obsessed with
    "proving relativity wrong". We are all wasting our time trying to explain to him the scientific truth, he'll never accept it.

    Relativity has to be "wrong" in order for his personal theory,also called "wisp" (see his website) to be right.
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2006
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook