And here JackBlack admits Kassner effect is real
Where?
I pointed out his paper is from quite some time ago and appears to be nothing more than the twin paradox.
This is not an effect, nor is it actually a problem.
It is just Sandokhan using whatever sources he can to pretend there is a problem when there is not.
Just like he tries to dishonestly use the work of Yeh and Wang to pretend his formula is correct, even though they are for vastly different setups, and they still accept the correct formula which directly contradicts his formula.
Again, it is a simple of the twin paradox.
The way this was first presented was by having one twin remain on Earth while another twin travels at almost the speed of light to a distant star, then when the reach the star they turn around and head back.
Then the twin on Earth has aged much more than the twin on the space ship.
During the outwards journey, both twins see each other age much more slowly than they appear to age themselves.
On the inwards trip, both appear to age much more rapidly.
So why is there a difference?
Why isn't it symmetrical with both twins ending up the same age?
They key part is the acceleration required to reverse the space ship and send it back to Earth.
This means the twin on Earth has been in a single ~inertial reference frame the entire time, while the twin on the spaceship has been in 2 separate ones.
And it is this use of non-inertial reference frames which causes this apparent paradox.
It is the same issue with Sagnac. It appears to be a problem, but that is because of the use of non-inertial reference frames and acceleration.
He also appeals to time being "multivalued" with a single even having multiple different time values. Which also is related to another "paradox". With relativity, time is relative. So there is nothing special or surprising about it.
As time is relative, simultaneousness is relative. 2 events can occur simultaneously in one reference frame, have event 1 occur earlier in another reference frame and have event 2 occur earlier in another reference frame.
So this isn't a problem at all.
And Dufour-Prunier experiment. Sandokhan talked about it in page 4, near end
Which experiment?
Page numbers aren't helpful as the page numbers vary depending upon how many posts per page you have your options set to. Reply number is far more useful, and a direct link to the post is even better as that has a unique message number which will never change without database manipulation.
And even better than that would be a link to the experiment.
Do you mean this one:
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdfWhere they produce an apparent contradiction?
This apparent contradiction is due to their choice of what claim should be an arbitrary choice of the apex of the triangle.
If that truly was arbitrary, then it should have no bearing at all on what the final result is. Yet the value they "predict" for reality using their simple formula is entirely dependent upon where they place that point.
That shows their conclusion is false.
In order to convince me they would need to provide a full derivation of the time required, will all approximations used.
Personally, I would say the simplest derivation is to note that the amount the source/detector rotates in the time it takes light to transit the loop is negligible (as it rotates at no more than 5 revolutions per second), thus the source/detector can be considered as being in an inertial reference frame. Thus you can calculate the time difference in the lab frame and can apply a simple transformation from the lab frame to its frame to determine the time difference in its frame, and by noting that its speed is negligible compared to the speed of light, you can also approximate them as being the same.
And then as the only difference in the path between the experiment entirely on a rotating disk and their experiment is the non-contributing axial paths and the path, then part of the light path being off the disk is irrelevant, other than the slight increase in time required for light to traverse the loop.
But that doesn't change the real issues for this thread.
The formulae Sandokhan are using to try to claim there is a missing orbital Sagnac effect either are outright false, relying upon pure nonsense for their derivation, or amount to an entirely reference frame dependent phase shift/time difference which cannot be directly measured, and the only way to attempt to measure it is by using a complex clock synchronisation method which is also reference frame dependent, where using a different synchronisation gives a different value.
None of it in any way supports a missing orbital Sagnac effect.
P.S. that font effect makes my eyes bleed.