You cannot derive the SAGNAC EFFECT from the CORIOLIS FORCE.

Except people have done just that.

Proof:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

He is not saying there are 2 effects.

He is saying that it isn't the Saganc effect at all, i.e. that the Sagnac effect isn't real, and instead it is just the Coriolis effect.

Try to find a single paper in a reputable journal which says that for a rotating ring interferometer there are 2 separate effects acting on the light, the Sagnac effect and the Coriolis effect, which produce a different shift. Not one showing how you can derive the Sagnac effect from the Coriolis effect or claiming the Sagnac effect is actually just the Coriolis effect.

The Coriolis effect is a physical effect, nothing else, a slight path deviation of the light beams.

By contrast, the Sagnac effect is an electromagnetic effect, a modification of the velocities of the light beams.

No, the Sagnac effect is a physical effect, the relative motion of the components of the light path.

RIZZI/RUGGIERO FORMULA #1, AREA/ANGULAR VELOCITY

And notice what it ends with?

Equation 7 is the Sagnac phase shift.

This is showing how you can derive the Sagnac effect from the Coriolis effect.

Again, what the actual difference is between those 2 papers is one is focusing on ring interferometers, while the other focuses on FOCs.

Please write to Dr. Rizzi and to Dr. Ruggiero and have them explain why they feature TWO VERY DIFFERENT FORMULAS FOR THE SAGNAC EFFECT: ONE DISPLAYS AN AREA, THE OTHER ONE DOES NOT.

There is no need.

I have already explained it.

One is for a FOC, the other is for a ring interferometer or FOG.

Yes.

Two distinct situations:

No, the exact same situation, with the same value obtained by 2 methods.

Stokes' theorem guarantees two formulas for each interferometer.

Which produce the same value.

Not where you just arbitrarily throw in extra constants to try and prop up your nonsense.

Show me a single "refutation" coming from you.

Remember those threads you linked?

They had the refutations.

You are the one failing to refute anything.

Your "arguments" were debunked in less than 60 seconds.

You have debunked literally nothing.

My derivation remains unchallenged.

You were unable to show a single problem with it. Instead you just tried to ridicule it.

You were completely unable to provide a derivation of your own, and instead just repeatedly asserted that your magic formula is correct, even though problems with it were shown quite easily.

You were even completely incapable of showing a derivation or calculating how long it takes for light to go around a stationary loop.

Like I said, if you wish to disagree, go back to one of those threads and provide a derivation and clearly show what is wrong with mine.

You are unable to face reality.

As such, you resort to lying on a monumental scale to satisfy what you have left of your sanity.

Good job projecting, yet again.

Why do you feel the need to project your inadequacies onto others?

Is it the only way you pretend to yourself that you are better than them?

**The MPPC acts like a normal mirror and Sagnac interferometry is obtained.**

You have just been caught plain lying.

No, I haven't.

You have just been caught displaying extreme dishonesty.

You were discussing a FOC, using it as evidence that you can have a Sagnac formula without area.

I pointed out that they are fundametnally different to a FOG.

And how do you respond?

By a quote comparing FOGs, to one with phase conjugate mirrors.

And what formula is provided by your source for such a system with phase conjugate mirrors?

The key part is:

4*pi*(R1*L1+R2*L2)*omega/(lambda*c).

Now, the only way to convert this to a velocity of the beam is if the 2 coils are rotating about their centre, in which case omega*R=v.

But that isn't what we are discussing so such a conversion would be incorrect.

We are discussing it rotating about a point away from the centre.

There are multiple loops in the coil.

In fact, the number of loops is easy to calculate from the radius and total length, as l=n*(2*pi*r).

So we can substitute that in to the formula above and get this:

4*pi*(2*pi*R1*n1*R1+2*pi*R2*n2*R2)*omega/(lambda*c)

And then simplify a bit, by noting pi*r^2 is the area.

4*pi*(2*n1*A1+2*n2*A2)*omega/(lambda*c)

Then if we make it comparable to the gyros we are discussing, where the loops are cocentric, we end up with:

4*pi*2*(n1+n2)*A*omega/(lambda*c)

So this formula, which is based upon just simple substitution has what in it?

An AREA and an ANGULAR VELOCITY!

There is no linear velocity in this formula.

The only way to get one in a simple manner is if you have both loops concentric and have it rotate about the centre of the loop.

That is because the tangential velocity is given by r*omega, where r is the distance from the centre of rotation, not the radius of the loop.

So even then, the formula equates to one based upon an area and angular velocity.

What are you going to do now?

Act sanely and accept defeat, or claim another "refutation" which never happened?

*If you don't get the same number, it means you screwed up.*

You are trolling the upper forums.

The statement refers to a single formula, applied in different references.

Not to two different formulas.

No, the statement applies to Stoke's theorem, which shows there are 2 equivalent ways to derive the value, either going based upon a line integral or based upon an area integral.

Again, do you actually understand Stoke's theorem?

*If you end up with 2 formulae with different values, i.e. they produce different numbers, Stoke's theorem guarantees that you screwed up.*

One is much larger than the other

That means you screwed up.

Stoke's theorem guarantees that the numbers will be the same.

If you get different numbers you screwed up.

CALTECH HAS PROVIDED TWO SEPARATE EFFECT/TWO SEPARATE FORMULAS FOR THE SAME INTERFEROMETER.

Where?

Caltech also fully accepts that Earth is round, and orbiting the sun.

That sure seems like it agrees with me, not you.

Are you going to admit that you claiming Earth is flat is wrong?

If not, perhaps you should stop repeatedly appealing to authorities you clearly don't understand.

If you want to pretend they agree with you, find a paper where they are clearly stating there are 2 fundamentally different formulas which produce different values for the exact same interferometer with the exact same rotation.