Circular and rectilinear Sagnac effects are dynamically equivalent and contradictory to special relativity theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sagnac effect, named after its discoverer, is the phase shift occurring between two beams of light, traveling in opposite directions along a closed path around a moving object. A special case is the circular Sagnac effect, known for its crucial role in GPS and fiber-optic gyroscopes. It is often claimed that the circular Sagnac effect does not contradict special relativity theory (SRT) because it is considered an accelerated motion, while SRT applies only to uniform, non-accelerated motion. It is further claimed that the Sagnac effect, manifest in circular motion, should be treated in the framework of general relativity theory (GRT). We counter these arguments by underscoring the fact that the dynamics of rectilinear and circular types of motion are completely equivalent, and that this equivalence holds true for both non-accelerated and accelerated motion. With respect to the Sagnac effect, this equivalence means that a uniform circular motion (with constant w) is completely equivalent to a uniform rectilinear motion (with constant v). We support this conclusion by convincing experimental findings, indicating that an identical Sagnac effect to the one found in circular motion, exists in rectilinear uniform motion. We conclude that the circular Sagnac effect is fully explainable in the framework of inertial systems, and that the circular Sagnac effect contradicts special relativity theory and calls for its refutation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".