From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It just happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

Cheers,
amirjf
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

amirjf <amirjfnin@aim.com> wrote or quoted:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It just >happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

You don't actually need a spinning wheel or some rotating
platform for the Sagnac effect to do its thing. It's gonna
happen anytime a closed-loop laser path gets slammed with
acceleration or goes flying in a straight line while the
light is literally mid-transit ("linear Sagnac effect").

Now, while spinning isn't some strict geometric rule, it is
an absolute mathematical and physical must if you're trying
to keep this whole vibe sustained inside a normal-sized gadg-
et that actually stays parked in one spot. Like, if you want
a closed optical loop to keep moving continuously within a
fixed, finite boundary while the device itself just stays put,
your only real option is to spin that bad boy right in place.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It just happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

a sagnac is no more than an Einstine's light clock, rotating.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 25/07/2026 19:21, amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It just happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

People who say "prove me wrong" don't know what they are talking about.
If they knew they would either retract or prove their claim.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 07/26/2026 01:03 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 25/07/2026 19:21, amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It
just happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

People who say "prove me wrong" don't know what they are talking about.
If they knew they would either retract or prove their claim.

"Prove me wrong" or "tell me I'm wrong" is for multiple purposes,
basically inviting contemplation and deliberation instead of
acceptance or rejection, the reasoning instead of the judgment.

It indicates vouched uncertainty, without saying whether the
speaker would or wouldn't incorporate further reasoning, while
yet implying that that argument is to stand for itself.

So, "prove me wrong" or "tell me I'm wrong" is for multiple
purposes, including both defiance and supplication.

It's an invitation and a challenge.

It's like that old "if you're hungry, there's food in the fridge",
there are simply implicits in natural language, and like "if you're
hungry, there's food in the fridge", basically invites the considered
response, instead of "eat it".


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It just happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

Science does not work this way. You are to substantiate your claim instead.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 7/27/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It just
happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

Science does not work this way. You are to substantiate your claim instead.

The way science works is: Thomas doesn't have
to substantiate his claims, it's his opponents
who have to.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 07/26/2026 08:47 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It just
happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

Science does not work this way. You are to substantiate your claim
instead.

The way science works is: Thomas doesn't have
to substantiate his claims, it's his opponents
who have to.

No, it's not like that, the way science works is
observability, repeatability, falsifiability, then
that in the overall experiment that includes _all_
the experiments and _all_ the data, so that, there's
always a default "better theory" since all the theories
in the structure of their mathematical formalisms have
_partial_ accounts, like the partial differential or
the truncation of terms of the power series', called
_reductionism_, so there's always room in the theory
for better theory, until such time as a more replete
"continuum mechanics" and the mathematics of infinity
make more than a _partial_ account.


Then, the anti-reductionism is a thing, where "SR-ians"
as they're put, will assert that "e = mc^2" is not a
reductionism, closed in their theory, yet it's also
just the first term from a series expansion from kinetics,
not closed in their theory. It's similar with Buckingham-pi
and natural units: making stuff dimensionless that's not.
Other accounts that stick out include the small-angle approximation,
which like Galilean relativity simply has no notion of rotation
at all, that later being Newtonian and Einsteinian,
leaving "room in the theory".


Then, the algebraic implicits are another thing,
about multiplicities and that singularities in a
singularity theory are branches in a multiplicity theory,
alike with "natural units" when they're contrived, the
accounts of:

reductionism-cancellation
reductionism-correction
reductionism-truncation
reductionism-approximation

pile up all together since the likes of Hooke's law, Boyle's
law, Clausius and Arrehenius, Kelvin, Planck, and so on,
each adding at least one kludge to hide the reductionism,
then fooling themselves mathematically.

Of course under duress these theories apologize themselves
as "only good to the first or second order".


The way science works is it's a mathematical physics.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 7/27/2026 6:13 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/26/2026 08:47 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It just >>>> happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

Science does not work this way.-a You are to substantiate your claim
instead.

The way science works is: Thomas doesn't have
to substantiate his claims, it's his opponents
who have to.

No, it's not like that, the way science works is
observability, repeatability, falsifiability,

What a sorry bullshit. And the way communism works
is - humble serving working people. Everybody
knows.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 07/26/2026 10:56 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 6:13 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/26/2026 08:47 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It
just
happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

Science does not work this way. You are to substantiate your claim
instead.

The way science works is: Thomas doesn't have
to substantiate his claims, it's his opponents
who have to.

No, it's not like that, the way science works is
observability, repeatability, falsifiability,

What a sorry bullshit. And the way communism works
is - humble serving working people. Everybody
knows.

These aren't matters for frail human ideologies,
these are idealisms. Logicist positivism is
at best a science, while yet there really are
straight lines and perfect circles, and
space inversion and the equivalency function.


At least it's better than anarcho-capitalism:
humiliating serving working people.

It's not like the old "communists or fascists: pick zero",
it's "pierce the veil with a silver stake".


Anyways physics has concepts like "absolute differential"
and "total differential", since "partial differential"
is "merely partial", also there are integral equations,
the consolutive setting, and then the requirements of
actual "higher mathematics", about continuity and infinity.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 7/27/2026 8:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/26/2026 10:56 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 6:13 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/26/2026 08:47 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It >>>>>> just
happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

Science does not work this way.-a You are to substantiate your claim >>>>> instead.

The way science works is: Thomas doesn't have
to substantiate his claims, it's his opponents
who have to.

No, it's not like that, the way science works is
observability, repeatability, falsifiability,

What a sorry bullshit. And the way communism works
is - humble serving working people. Everybody
knows.

These aren't matters for frail human ideologies,
these are idealisms. Logicist positivism is
at best a science, while yet there really are
straight lines and perfect circles, and
space inversion and the equivalency function.

At least it's better than anarcho-capitalism:
humiliating serving working people.

It's not like the old "communists or fascists: pick zero",
it's "pierce the veil with a silver stake".

Anyways physics has concepts like "absolute differential"
and "total differential", since "partial differential"
is "merely partial", also there are integral equations,
the consolutive setting, and then the requirements of
actual "higher mathematics", about continuity and infinity.

Oh, since it has soooo magnificient concepts -
its knights are for sure free of weaknesess
of ordinary mortal worms.





--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 07/27/2026 05:40 AM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 8:19 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/26/2026 10:56 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 6:13 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 07/26/2026 08:47 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:

On 7/27/2026 2:58 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf wrote:

The Sagnac effect does *Not* depend on rotation being involved. It >>>>>>> just
happens to be a convenient way of causing it. Prove me wrong.

Science does not work this way. You are to substantiate your claim >>>>>> instead.

The way science works is: Thomas doesn't have
to substantiate his claims, it's his opponents
who have to.

No, it's not like that, the way science works is
observability, repeatability, falsifiability,

What a sorry bullshit. And the way communism works
is - humble serving working people. Everybody
knows.

These aren't matters for frail human ideologies,
these are idealisms. Logicist positivism is
at best a science, while yet there really are
straight lines and perfect circles, and
space inversion and the equivalency function.


At least it's better than anarcho-capitalism:
humiliating serving working people.

It's not like the old "communists or fascists: pick zero",
it's "pierce the veil with a silver stake".


Anyways physics has concepts like "absolute differential"
and "total differential", since "partial differential"
is "merely partial", also there are integral equations,
the consolutive setting, and then the requirements of
actual "higher mathematics", about continuity and infinity.

Oh, since it has soooo magnificient concepts -
its knights are for sure free of weaknesess
of ordinary mortal worms.

Au contraire, though we may _attain_ to those ideals
if to _obtain_ is reasonably impossible.

The "human condition" and whether the "noble savage"
or the "betes humaines", eudamonia is still a thing.

Then, mathematical ideals are perfect is sort of the point.
Whether it's Plato's ideals or furthermore Leibniz' perfection,
the idea that the world really has straight lines and perfect circles
and a point at infinity and a great circle, is both natural and super.


The ancient concepts of macroscale and microscale,
man being a tiny little dot in a tiny little dot,
or these days macroscale and microscale and mesoscale,
still there are thinking beings and feeling beings
none perfect as all that.


This is more super than non, super-Euclidean, for example,
not non-Euclidaen.

Then, the many sorts of accounts of trying to get there
has that there's at least one pasted all together from
many partial accounts, then that knowing how to repair
that the many points where it was broken together.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2