[28楼]  作者:yanghx加为好友发送消息个人空间回复修改来源删除

另外就是与“环路包围的面积无关”，这一点也很重要，
--------------------------------------
又被忽悠了吧,环路包围的面积又不是sagnac效应推导必要条件(必要数据)!那当然与sagnac效应无关了.

sagnac效应推导到最后才用圆环面积S简化替代式中出现的 圆周率*R*R

    当年居然还有一个8km长下水管道被抽空的实验，我可又是第一次听说了，能“测出略高于地球自转15度/hr的转动速率”可见实验精度之高。事实上地球的自转周期是86164.1秒，干涉条纹的移动量理论值是每小时15.041度。他们先期的那个著名的“339×613平方米的矩形闭合回路”，一直找不到所使用的光波波长数据，这个回路也有1.9km光程，道理上是不会产生0.006个条纹误差的，很可能是因为光波波长数据选择误差所致。

.

    很可惜，这一次的“科学”给人类所开的玩笑实在是太大了，Miohelson穷其一生所有一切探索的以太漂移，被他两次找到后就都这么轻易地放弃了，这样的伟大科学家居然远没有普朗克他们的名气大！

M-G实验是用的碳弧灯，


这是Wikipedia的解释:

《Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment》
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Gale-Pearson_experiment


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment (1925) is a modified version of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer which tests the theories of special relativity and luminiferous ether along the rotating frame of Earth.

The aim was to find out whether the rotation of the Earth has an effect on the propagation of light in the vicinity of the Earth. The Michelson-Gale experiment was a very large ring interferometer, (a perimeter of 1.9 kilometer), large enough to detect the angular velocity of the Earth. Like the original Michelson-Morley experiment, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson version compared the light from a single source (carbon arc) after travelling in two directions. The major change was to replace the two "arms" of the original MM version with two rectangles, one much larger than the other. Light was sent into the rectangles, reflecting off mirrors at the corners, and returned to the starting point. Light exiting the two rectangles was compared on a screen just as the light returning from the two arms would be in a standard MM experiment.

The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy. The ring interferometer of the Michelson-Gale experiment was not calibrated by comparison with an outside reference (which was not possible, because the setup was fixed to the Earth). From its design it could be deduced where the central interference fringe ought to be if there would be zero shift. The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000. According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity. However, while the idea of stationary ether (except Lorentz's ether) contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, special relativity explains both experiments.


=================================================
《A NEW PHYSICS by William Day》
http://www.fnd.org/pgs/physics/newphy_rvw_halfox.htm

Michelson and Gale (in 1925) reported on an improved experiment designed to test: “Theory of the effect of the rotation of the earth on the velocity of light as derived on the hypothesis of a fixed ether.” The results of this experiment in which “…two hundred and sixty determinations…” were made were positive.

The observed results were 0.230 +/- 0.005 (fringes) and the calculated results were 0.236 +/- 0.002 fringes. An amazingly close agreement between observations and theoretical prediction. Dr. William Day reprints the Michelson-Gale report in an Appendix to his book for which this reviewer applauds the author! Ask yourself the question, “Why do the scientific professors teach the negative results of the early Michelson-Morley experiment and ignore the extensive data and high accuracy of the Michelson-Gale report?” You will probably consider the same explanation as this reviewer and, I believe, Dr. William Day has reached. The Michelson-Gale data did not fit the currently-accepted model of physics, therefore, the data was ignored and, unfortunately, still is. Dogma is more important than facts in some cases. Fortunately, Day’s model of Physics is free of dogma and explains many of the unexplained experimental observations that are unexplained by current physics.


特别注意到下面这段：
“Why do the scientific professors teach the negative results of the early Michelson-Morley experiment
and ignore the extensive data and high accuracy of the Michelson-Gale report?”

看来国外也有与我们一样的疑问：为什么教授们总是讲授M-M实验的零结果，却忽略了高精度的M-G实验？


======================================================
这里有一些M-G实验的介绍和计算方法：
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/ph97fi1/ph97fi1.stm


看来只有慢慢搜索这个M-G实验的碎片，逐步拼凑、还原出较完整的历史实验资料了，

    前面的内容还没看，最后提供的链接文章>我早已收存并做了翻译，但原文找不到了，这篇链接是我收存的那篇文章经修改后再发表的，简单对比了一下可能只增加几个图片(图1和图5，其他还没看)。

.

    关键是文章中关于迈-盖实验的数学证明，我的原始论文就是参照他这方法证明的，后来受到龚益群的质疑(其实我自己也知道有些牵强附绘)，最后终于被我攻克这个难题而获得了现在论文中的结果，所以我说 我的论文> 是对迈-盖实验八十多年以来唯一完成的严格数学证明。

这从光程差分析,那是从静止坐标系分析的了

基于分光器（光源）、干涉屏也是随光纤转动的（与光纤静止不动），那，若从站在转动光纤上观测分析,那我也想想看用经典理论如何得出sagnac效应的。

According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity. However, while the idea of stationary ether (except Lorentz's ether) contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, special relativity explains both experiments.

这句话是关键。

另外，你怎么能看wikipedia???

这解释有p用啊

能解释因不同转速而产生不同干涉条纹变化吗?能测得出不同转动速度吗?

再教你一次。在仪器系：

那么顺时针方向和逆时针方向的两束光的速度就应当分别为

ｖ'＝ｃ－ωＲ，   ｖ"＝ｃ＋ωＲ。           (１）

/
环的周长为Ｌ＝２πＲ，因而两束光在环中的渡越时间分别为

/

ｔ'＝２πＲ／ｖ'， ｔ"＝２πＲ／ｖ"。         (２)--

/
两者的时差为△ｔ＝ｔ'-ｔ"＝４πωＲ^2／ｃ^2(１-ω^2Ｒ^2／ｃ^2)，略去二级小量，得

△ｔ≈４πωＲ^2／ｃ^2 。                 (３)

/
环路包围的面积是Ｓ＝πＲ^2，因而上式可改写成

△ｔ≈４ωＳ／ｃ^2 。                     (４)

/
单色光的周期为τ＝λ／ｃ，因而与上述时差对应的条纹移动数目是
    △Ｎ＝△ｔ／τ＝４ωＳ／ｃλ。               (５)

对【57】楼:

我从44楼下半段起一直到55楼一直站在光纤上(即仪器系)分析,你也是,你现在又想跳到那个系分析?

回到仪器系中,光煤质产生拽引速度矢量叠加上去分析!!
就从你光煤质说吧,并且仪器运动无法曳引光煤质,那么,

若光煤质各向同性(光煤质产生拽引速度各方向相等（唯一是零）……)

难于理解的是：
站在转动光纤上观测分析,分光器（光源）、干涉屏、光纤、观测者之间都是静止，如何得出【那么顺时针方向和逆时针方向的两束光的速度就应当分别为ｖ'＝ｃ－ωＲ， ｖ"＝ｃ＋ωＲ 】？
----------------------------------------------

若光煤质各向异性(光煤质产生拽引速度各方向不等),你又如何自圆其说:【【静止的仪器相对光煤质的速度是0，你测什么风？】】

我的讨论到此为止了.你57楼也不是对你自己48楼【经典物理解释】的本意解释.没意思 88

我再解释最后一次，如果你还不解，就不要再问我了。

假如地球上无风，当你静止时，你会发现正反声速大小相等（你测不到风）；当你运动时，你会发现正反声速大小不等（好比你在仪器系正反光速不等），因为你的运动无法曳引空气。

其实狭义相对论是肯定无法解释sagnac效应的（当然也可以用非惯性系来回避），
广义相对论是否能解释sagnac恐怕还不一定，借用A-B实验的类比方法也存在不少问题，
总之说相对论可以解释sagnac效应可能还需要重新审视，
其实既然广义相对论也认可以太的存在，为什么不用以太的方法去解释sagnac效应呢？
一定要舍近求远，用A-B实验来间接类比？

以太论也要发展，当时的以太论无法解释的M-M实验不一定永远就解释不了？
只是要做出可信的解释，要有一系列实验的验证，这个在以太论仍未引起足够重视之前确实不太容易，

原来wikipedia要用英文检索才能看到，以前没注意到这个，
这个信息化社会里，检索、搜索信息会越来越显得重要，