From Geocentricity, pp. 280-284, Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D., Geocentricity, (Association for Biblical Astronomy, 4527 Wetzel Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44109, 1992.

It is possible to modify the Michelson-Morley apparatus to check for the rotation of the earth within the ether, that is, to see if the earth rotates with respect to the aether. Remember, that if such a rotation exists, the experiment cannot distinguish between whether the earth actually rotates and the ether is at rest, or whether the earth does not rotate and the aether spins around it. This modification to the Michelson-Morley experiment was first performed by Georges Sagnac (1869-1926), and his result came to be known as the Sagnac effect. (2) In his experiment Sagnac sent two rays of light in opposite directions around a turntable (Figure 30). If the turntable rotated clockwise, then the light circulating in one direction will arrive at a detector sooner than the light going in the opposite direction. The reverse is true if the turntable rotates in the opposite sense. Sagnac rotated his turntable at two revolutions per second and found the expected effect; that is, he demonstrated that absolute rotation could be measured. Unfortunately, Sagnac's experiment has never been performed accurately enough to discern whether the period of absolute rotation is the solar day of 24 hours or the sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes.  

It was subsequently pointed out by Ives (3) that the theory of relativity cannot explain Sagnac's result. This means that the very theory needed to explain why the earth "looks" stationary in Michelson-Morley type experiments predicts that similarly, the earth should not appear to rotate! Thus experiments indicate that the earth is not moving through the aether but that there is rotation. If we add the hypothesis of the Fitzgerald contraction to the former case to "allow" the earth to move, then the second experiment Contradicts that hypothesis. There have been a few relativistic attempts to explain the Sagnac effect while maintaining relativity to be true; but these inherently assume that there is such thing as an aether to begin with and thus are not truly relativistic explanations.(4) Another common out for relativists is one like that described in Browne's paper: (5)  

The explanation of the Sagnac effect is simple for the inertial frame of reference. The motions of the mirrors during the light transit time between mirrors causes the clockwise and counter-clockwise waves to be reflected at different points of space, which leads to an optical path difference. (6)  

This simplistic explanation can be belied by simply considering the light path to be tangent to a reflecting cylinder-that is to replace the individual mirrors by one cylindrical mirror. In that case the cylindrical mirror need not rotate at all and Browne's "simple" explanation fails. (7) This also nullifies Browne's proof that the aether cannot rotate around the earth. (8) Ives concludes his analysis of the Sagnac effect with the statement:  

"[if the observer's] apparatus rotates with respect to the stars he will observe a Sagnac effect, if it does not, then no matter how great a relative rotation it exhibits with respect to its material surroundings, there will be no effect." (9)  

At first sight Ives' statement would appear to counter the geocentric position, but it does not do so for Ives states that apparatus should rotate "with respect to the stars." This indicates relative rotation and is true whether we view the stars as stationary and the apparatus as rotating or whether we view the apparatus as stationary and the stars as rotating about it.  

Over the intervening decades since Sagnac's result was published, several variations on his original experiment have been formed. The variations have been designed in an effort to either confirm or deny Sagnac's result. Most such experimental variations have involved things like conducting the experiment with apparatus in a vacuum, or else inside some medium other than air; or to have the medium rotate while the mirrors are held stationary with respect to the earth. All of these variations agree with Sagnac's original result.(10) Still another variation was that of Dufour and Prunier who kept the light source and observer separated from and not moving with the turntable on which the mirrors were mounted.(11) Their result was the same as Sagnac's.


2) Sagnac, G. 1913. Comptes Rendus, 157:708 & 1410.

3) Ives, H.E., 1938. Jrnl. of the Optical Soc. of Am., 28:296

4) Post, E.J., 1967. Rev. Mod. Phys., 39:475

5) Browne, P.F., 1977. Jrnl. of Phys. A: Math and Gen., 10:727.

6) ibid p.739

7) Ives, 1938. Op cit., p.297

8) Browne, 1977. Op cit., p. 740

9) Ives, 1938. Op cit., p. 299

10) Pagamy, B. 1928. Ann.d. Phys., 85:244

11) Dufour, A. & F. Prunier, 1937. Comptes Rendus, 204, 1925. Also, 1942.

Jrnl.Phys. et Radium, 3:153 and S. Marinov, 1978. Found Phys., 8:137.

The Sagnac effect observed in crystals

From the Biblical Astronomer Vol. 4 (70), p.19

  In an article entitled "Neutron Interferometry," Helmut Rauch (7) reports that the Sagnac effect has been observed in neutron interferometry. "The coupling of the neutron to the gravitational field has also attracted interest as it offers a way of testing some of the connections between gravity and quantum fields. The effect of the Earth's gravitational field manifests itself when the interferometer crystal is rotated around a horizontal axis in such a way that one beam path experiences a higher gravitational potential [energy] that the other. The induced phase shift therefore contains terms of both gravitational and quantum mechanical origin. Neutron interferometry also permitted the observation of the Sagnac effect, which is the phase shift between two paths oriented in opposite directions about the Earth's rotation axis." The Sagnac effect cannot be explained by the theory of relativity and it also cannot distinguish whether the earth is rotating inside the universe or the universe rotates in the opposite direction about the earth. When contrasted with the Michelson-Morley experiment which failed to find the motion of the earth about the sun, the Sagnac effect becomes a potent experiment in favor of the geocentric hypothesis. Now its been observed using neutrons, too. Sagnac effect used in modern technology: Speaking of Sagnac effect, Biblical Astronomer, Vol. 4 (70) pg. 21  

Hitachi has developed an optical fiber gyro for automotive (yes, that's right, automotive) navigational systems. The gyroscope, which works by circulating light beams in opposite directions around a spool, detects rotation of the car and thus provides an azimuth (angle from north) reading. It's already been installed as an azimuth sensor in certain Toyota vehicles.  


6. Cowan, Ron, Science News, 143, 204.  

7. Rauch, Helmut, 1993. "Neutron Interferometry," Science, 262:1384-85. Quote is on page 1385.

8. "Redshift and the age of the universe," Biblical Astronomer, 4 (67):27.


  The Sagnac effect can only be explained if the speed of the mirrors through the aether is alternately added and subtracted to the speed of light. In the usual wave-based analysis, the speed of light is constant, c, through the aether, and the speed of the mirror, v, is added or subtracted (depending on direction) to c when computing travel times. Think of the mirror as a speedboat going upstream and downstream. Harald adds or subtracts the speed also, claiming that the photon picks up the speed, but the term is still c+v or c-v in both cases. So how can Harald claim he has proven the ballistic theory when the wave theory gives the same travel times for the experiment?

Entered November 28, 1996.

With special thanks to Rick Dortignac (75201.1137@CompuServe.COM).