The Truth of the Experiments of Invariable Speed of Light in Special Relativity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is pointed out that the most experiments on the invariant speed of light in special relativity proves the round-trip invariant speed of light, not one-way invariant. This paper makes a distinction between them. The Michelson-Morley experiment and the experiment of high-energy particles emitting photons and so on are the round-trip experiment of light’s speed, showing that the average speed of light is a constant. But the Sagnac effect experiment, the Michelson-Gale's experiment that the earth's rotation effects the speed of light, and the satellite signal propagation between China and Japan are the one-way experiments of light’s speed, showing that the speed of light is variable, satisfying the Galilean velocity addition rule. The orbit shape changes of binary stars and the phenomenon of charm stars cannot be observed due to that the calculated observing directions are different from the practical observing direction for the observers on the Earth. The Fizeau water flow experiment and the Sagnac experiment are combined to prove that the rotation of optical fiber would affects the speed of light. The problem that the Sagnac effect is independent of the refractive index of optical fiber is explained well. It is proved that the Sagnac effect formula derived from special relativity is consistent with that derived from classical mechanics when the optical fiber’s refractive index . When , there is no the Sagnac effect according to special relativity. While according to classical mechanics, there is the Sagnac effect. The original experiment of Sagnac effect in 1913 was carried out in atmosphere with . Therefore, the original Sagnac experiment became a judgment experiment. It certainly jugated that the velocity of light satisfied the Galilean addition rule rather than the Lorentz transformation formula.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".