And the insistence that if we measured the speed of light in a portion of the Loop, we would still detect light moving at C in that portion.
Should read: And the insistence that if we measured the speed of light in a portion of the Loop, we would still detect light moving at C in each direction in that portion. On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:34 AM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Sagnac effect is where light is sent both ways around a loop (fibre > optic cable loop/coil or an arrangement of mirrors) and the time it takes > light to complete the loop is increased in one direction and decreased in > the other from the rotation, in other words one trip would be seen to > exceed C and the other to be less than C. > > But this is explained as accepted under Special Relativity by the sudden > inclusion of a preferred frame with proper time etc.... > And the insistence that if we measured the speed of light in a portion of > the Loop, we would still detect light moving at C in that portion. > > This is a real effect that is used as an optical gyroscope in guidance > systems, so there is no debate IF the trip time varies, it really is > accepted and considered Ok with Special Relativity. > > Now what if we rotated the loop at near the speed of light? Now if we > looked at the time it takes for light to go one direction it would act like > the trip was about half the length due to addition of C and almost C. > In the other direction it would be lengthened hugely since it would be C > minus almost C. > > Now in one direction the same photon could do many laps in the time the > other completes a tine portion. > > Can the speed of light be measured in a portion to be C in both directions > when one photon moves though many times (and the rest) while the other > photon is struggling to do it once? > > NO! > > And if this obvious truth is accepted, then we must ask, could not any > curved path be a portion of a large circle, hence act as if it were a > portion of a very large rotating frame even if the circle would be > trillions of times larger than the galaxy? > > This then means that in practice all motion would not be perfectly linear > due to influences of gravity and all would have relativistic light speed > differences! > > The speed of light being C is actually not indicated by most experiments > to measure the speed of light as C under all conditions, rather > confirmation bias and stilted interpretations of results are used to keep > the theory alive. > > John > >
