From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Okay, how about one more just for laughs...

Okay, one more just for laughs...

What's all these "We"?????

https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf

We have shown...

We can thus consider...

We will see if the...

We will calculate what t...

We have...


Is "We" me, myself and I????


This is a 2010 amateur PDF desperately reinventing the 1913 Sagnac wheel
with four mirrors and hand-wavy approximations, pretending itAs a fresh
test of Special Relativity.[Core Structural / Fatal Flaws u numbered]
1. Completely redundant corpse of a 97-year-old experiment.
The Sagnac effect u exactly the phase shift ?f y 8p A ? / (? c) you
derive in Eqs. 11-12 u was measured in 1913, confirmed by every
ring-laser gyro and fiber-optic gyro since, and already falsifies emission/ballistic theories (light speed c relative to source). Your four-mirror square with a half-silvered splitter and screen adds
precisely zero new data. Claiming this otests STR vs emission theorieso
is the intellectual equivalent of publishing a paper on why wheels are
round in 2026.

2. Your oslightly divergent beam to compensate deflectiono is pure
engineering illiteracy.
The beam walk-off angle per mirror is O(? r / c) y 10^{-8} rad at any
sane lab rotation speed. You do not need divergence; you need a
collimated, diffraction-limited beam. Your diffuser destroys spatial
coherence, washes out fringes, and guarantees the interference pattern
on the screen will be a blurry mess long before rotation even starts.
This is the exact opposite of what every working Sagnac ever built
actually uses.3. The math is sloppy first-order garbage dressed up with curved-beam fairy tales.
Eqs. 1-8 mix linear (? t_f) and quadratic (?# t_f) terms in the same approximation step; the STR transit-time solve in Eqs. 9-10 is
internally inconsistent as transcribed; the wavelength-difference
section admits the curvature correction is second-order irrelevant (Eq.
22) yet you still waste pages on it. This is not rigorous derivation u
itAs the kind of back-of-envelope scribble that survives only because no referee ever saw it.4. Zero experimental reality or sensitivity
analysis.
You describe a 9-page thought experiment with no numbers on required
mirror flatness (?/20 minimum, per the Babcock paper you cite),
vibration tolerance, coherence length, or actual fringe visibility. At realistic lab values (r y 0.5 m, A y 0.5 m#, ? y 10 rad/s, ? = 633 nm)
your predicted fringe shift is ~0.1 fringes max u undetectable on a
screen amid any real-world air current, thermal drift, or motor
vibration. ThatAs why real devices use kilometers of fiber or high-Q
laser cavities. Yours dies at the prototype stage.5. The emission-theory
onull predictiono is correct but irrelevant u youAre shadow-boxing a
theory already in the grave.
Emission theories died with de SitterAs double-star observations, Ives-Stilwell, and every modern Sagnac variant. Re-deriving ?f y 0 for
them in 2010 on a personal website is not science; itAs historical
cosplay.
You silently assume: (1) four flat mirrors stay perfectly aligned and
flat while the whole apparatus spins; (2) air inside the ring is
irrelevant (no refractive-index gradients from rotation); (3) the
half-silvered mirror at the center introduces no differential phase or polarization artifacts; (4) oslightly divergento magically fixes beam
overlap without killing fringe contrast; (5) anyone in 2010 still cares
about testing a long-dead ballistic model. All fairy-tale premises.
Actual experimental physicists will glance at the personal-website URL,
see ofour mirror Sagnaco and oemission theories,o and file it under ocrank-adjacent amateur relativity.o No grad student will touch it.
Funding agencies laugh. Competitors with actual ring-laser arrays
already have data orders of magnitude better. Regulators and journals
wonAt even notice because this never leaves your PDF folder. Customers?
There are none u because the product is useless.
At desktop scale the signal is buried in 10^{-6}u10^{-8} rad alignment
noise and vibration; to reach even 1-fringe visibility without fiber you
need either A ~ hundreds of m# or ? approaching supersonic u at which
point your mirrors explode, air drag becomes supersonic flow, and the
entire classical approximation collapses. Physics does not scale; your
setup dies at the first 0.1 Hz rotation. Durability is zero because
every real Sagnac that works uses either evacuated fiber loops or
monolithic laser cavities u exactly what you avoided for
osimplicity.o[What Actually Has to Be Burned to the Ground and Redone] Everything. The entire onovel four-mirroro concept, the divergent-beam justification, the pretense that this tests anything new in 2010, the
9-page derivation that could have been one paragraph citing 1913, and
the assumption that a screen-and-mirrors toy is viable. Replace it with
oread Wikipedia on Sagnac effect and buy a commercial fiber-optic gyro
for $500.o
Nothing. Not a single paragraph survives scrutiny. The basic square
geometry diagram is mildly cute but irrelevant.
This PDF is why peer review was invented u to stop exactly this kind of
9-page wheel-reinvention from wasting everyoneAs time. Delete it and
move on.


Einstein is throwing up...


I guess 'get another hobby' is too late.


This is proof that 'intelligent life' does not exist on earth...
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2