On Dec 24, 7:57*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
...
We know now that SR's domain of applicability includes all aspects of
Minkowski spacetime, and doesn't include any other base manifold. Of
course SR is the local limit of GR in any manifold, but that is only
approximate.

Tom, I would appreciate a reference to a published demonstration that
SR is the approximate limit of GR. I thought Einstein wasted the last
40 years of his life trying to unify these two theories. Isn't this
why quantum-gravity is still a hot research topic: SR is about
electromegnetism (and so, eventually covered by QM) while GR is about
gravity?

maxwell wrote:
On Dec 24, 7:57 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
SR is the local limit of GR in any manifold, but that is only
approximate.

Tom, I would appreciate a reference to a published demonstration that
SR is the approximate limit of GR.

Look in the beginning chapters of any textbook on GR. This is basic to
the formulation of GR.

For instance: Geroch, _General_Relativity_from_A_to_B_.
This is a non-mathematical introduction to the concepts of
GR, but I think it discusses this. Otherwise pull out the
big guns:
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, _Gravitation_.
Wald, _General_Relativity_.
... or other textbooks by Schutz, etc.


I thought Einstein wasted the last
40 years of his life trying to unify these two theories. Isn't this
why quantum-gravity is still a hot research topic: SR is about
electromegnetism (and so, eventually covered by QM) while GR is about
gravity?

You are confused. SR is inherent in GR by simply applying GR to the
Minkowski manifold. What Einstein tried (unsuccessfully) to do is to
unify GR and electrodynamics. The search for quantum gravity is a whole
different kettle of fish -- Einstein was working with Maxwell's
equations, which we now know are only an approximation to QED, and this
is likely a major aspect of his failure. The real problem is unifying GR
and quantum mechanics....

BTW SR is more general than just electromagnetism -- it applies to the
entire standard model of particle physics (i.e. also to weak and strong
interactions, as well as to electrodynamics). This is a quantum theory
consistent with SR, but it is not consistent with GR.


Tom Roberts

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:08:33 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

:
: Hooray, you finally got something right.
: Androcles is indeed a closet aetherist...

****head Wilson is a bull****ting sheep shagging LIAR.

All right! I have an apology to make....and I will make it on the condition
that you call a unilateral truce.

You were correct about Sagnac being explainable by the Coriolis effect, when
analysed in the rotating frame.
You obviously read about it somewhere and probably don't really understand
why...so I'll give you an opportunity to prove you're not a dopey old *******
after all.

Would you please explain to Roberts and Jeckyl the role that Coriolis plays in
Sagnac. I already know the answer. I worked it out myself.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:08:33 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
:
: :
: : Hooray, you finally got something right.
: : Androcles is indeed a closet aetherist...
:
: ****head Wilson is a bull****ting sheep shagging LIAR.
:
: All right! I have an apology to make....and I will make it on the
condition
: that you call a unilateral truce.

You can have a truce as soon as you explain how there are
14 wavelengths going ccw and 10 going cw in rayphases.exe
when in fact 12 are emitted in each direction.
Hint:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif
(24 in each direction)
Then you can apologise to all the people you've tried to deceive.

You could be useful if you were not a loose cannon on the gun deck,
firing in all directions.

: You were correct about Sagnac being explainable by the Coriolis effect,
when
: analysed in the rotating frame.

Of course I'm correct.


: You obviously read about it somewhere and probably don't really understand
: why...

****head Wilson is a bull****ting sheep shagging JEALOUS LIAR.
Just because you lack the intelligence to connect the two, Wilson,
doesn't make me as stupid as you.

: so I'll give you an opportunity to prove you're not a dopey old *******
: after all.

No way, it's war between us until YOU surrender. You are up against
a British bulldog. I've got my teeth in your arse and I'm biting.

:
: Would you please explain to Roberts and Jeckyl the role that Coriolis
plays in
: Sagnac. I already know the answer. I worked it out myself.

You thought about it after you read it somewhere and probably still
don't really understand why, and the only place you read it is in
MY writings, you JEALOUS *******.

YOU can tell Fecal Jeckyl, Tusseladd, Jeery and Humpty that *I* am right.

On Dec 24, 10:38*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 24, 2:52 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote in sci.physics.relativity:





"Abonito" wrote:
Relativity Geometry
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Einstein's special theory of relativity is about measurements between frames
of reference in a state of non acceleration.

Not really. Special relativity can work with accelerated
objects and frames, but never mind.

It is an observation that the
velocity of light is independent of the relative velocity between observer
and the source. From this Lorenz postulated a length contraction to allow
for this. Einstein derived the same equation from the observations.
If you look at this equation there is no special frame so any frame may be
taken as the reference frame.
Let us consider the passage of mesons from the origin in the upper
atmosphere to their arrival at a counter on the earth's surface. The
observer "sees" the origin from his frame and since he is "looking" at the
meson then this point is only a few feet above the laboratory roof because
of the Lorenz contraction.

No, not at all.
The observer on the ground knows that and where in the upper
atmosphere muons (and other stuff) are created. Also knowing
how short muons live on the average, he calculates that there
are much more muons reaching the ground than expected.
It turns out that if the "internal muon lifetime clocks" are slowed
down by the precisely the amount described by the equations,
the number that reaches the ground fits the expected value.
This is "time dilation" in action.

Moortel Moortel what you call "how short muons live on average" your
masters used to call "muon lifetime at rest". But they don't even
mention it anymore. Why? Because people now know that this "muon
lifetime at rest" is one of the greatest frauds ever devised by
Einstein criminal cult:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...owse_frm/threa...

When the lifetime "at rest" is measured, by "at rest" Einstein
criminal cult mean a crash undergone by the muon in which its speed
changes from about 300000km/s to zero. That crash is so terrible that
the muon "dies" quickly, much more quickly than muons that have not
undergone the crash:

http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf
"In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the
muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure
the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a
plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their
decay."

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pentcho, motion is detectable because it always starts with an
acceleration. This is true for anything except freefall. Freefall you
can measure when you hit the ground. For weightless acceleration of
gravity the detection of motion happens at DECELERATION.

Either way motion is detectable.

Mitch Raemsch -- frerfalll --

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:26:19 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
: On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:08:33 GMT, "Androcles"

: All right! I have an apology to make....and I will make it on the
condition
: that you call a unilateral truce.

You can have a truce as soon as you explain how there are
14 wavelengths going ccw and 10 going cw in rayphases.exe
when in fact 12 are emitted in each direction.
Hint:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif

This shows two identical oscillators moving away from a common point at
different speeds. Their wavelengths are different....as my definition of
wavelength states.
You are using the source frame.
In a sagnac ring, the two identical oscillators move away at the SAME speed
'c'......so your illustration is not relevant to Sagnac.

In the frame of an observer moving away from the point at v, the wave speeds
relative to that observer are c+v and c-v and their frequencies are doppler
shifted to f(c+v)/c and f(c-v)/c. Wavelength is (speed/frequency)and, as you
can see, remains the same in both waves.

(24 in each direction)
Then you can apologise to all the people you've tried to deceive.

This is basically how light behaves in a sagnac ring:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe

You could be useful if you were not a loose cannon on the gun deck,
firing in all directions.

: You were correct about Sagnac being explainable by the Coriolis effect,
when
: analysed in the rotating frame.

Of course I'm correct.


tell us all about it then.
Where's you equation?

: You obviously read about it somewhere and probably don't really understand
: why...

****head Wilson is a bull****ting sheep shagging JEALOUS LIAR.
Just because you lack the intelligence to connect the two, Wilson,
doesn't make me as stupid as you.

: so I'll give you an opportunity to prove you're not a dopey old *******
: after all.

No way, it's war between us until YOU surrender. You are up against
a British bulldog. I've got my teeth in your arse and I'm biting.

You don't frighten me...I suppose you still think Britannia Rules The Waves.

: Would you please explain to Roberts and Jeckyl the role that Coriolis
plays in
: Sagnac. I already know the answer. I worked it out myself.

You thought about it after you read it somewhere and probably still
don't really understand why, and the only place you read it is in
MY writings, you JEALOUS *******.

Come on! Tell us all about Coriolis and Sagnac.

I want YOU to tell Tom why his bullet analogy is wrong.

YOU can tell Fecal Jeckyl, Tusseladd, Jeery and Humpty that *I* am right.

I agree you ARE right....but I doubt if you know why.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:26:19 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
: : On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:08:33 GMT, "Androcles"
:
: : All right! I have an apology to make....and I will make it on the
: condition
: : that you call a unilateral truce.
:
: You can have a truce as soon as you explain how there are
: 14 wavelengths going ccw and 10 going cw in rayphases.exe
: when in fact 12 are emitted in each direction.
: Hint:
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif
:
: This shows two identical oscillators moving away from a common point at
: different speeds.

Yep, in the non-rotating frame they do have different speeds, c+v and c-v.
The start point isn't moving. They have identical frequencies, different
speeds and travel different distances in the same time. That's what
a different speed is.

In rayphases.exe your two oscillators have different frequencies, 0.7 Hz
and 0.5 Hz.
If you increase the speed to your fake maximum 0.005 then
there are 18 crests blue, a frequency of 0.9 Hz and 6 red crests,
a frequency of 0.3 Hz.
Look, a kiddy jumping up and down on a bus doesn't change the frequency,
it changes the leap forward along the road as the bus increases speed.

: Their wavelengths are different....
Of course they are different, there are exactly the same number of
them in two different distances, you knee-jerking moron.

(knee jerk, knee jerk)
: as my definition of wavelength states.

Your definition of wavelength is absurd. You are a ****ing idiot.


: You are using the source frame.

WRONG!
That gif is drawn ENTIRELY in the non rotating frame.
In the rotating source frame the cw and ccw wavelengths
are mirrot images of each other, as are the frequencies and
the distances from the source.

: In a sagnac ring, the two identical oscillators move away at the SAME
speed
: 'c'......

Yep.

: so your illustration is not relevant to Sagnac.

You have the wrong frame and YOU are irrelevant, you ****in'
useless loose cannon.


:
: In the frame of an observer moving away from the point at v,

Observers are either in the rotating frame or the non-rotating
frame, they are not "moving away". You are ****in' hopeless.
[garbage snipped]

:
: (24 in each direction)
: Then you can apologise to all the people you've tried to deceive.
:
: This is basically how light behaves in a sagnac ring:
: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe

Same bull****, different wave shape. The wheels have
different frequencies. If the speed were increased to
your fake 0.01 the kiddy jumping up and down on the bus
wouldn't be able to move, that's ridiculous. You have an
aetherialist's model, not a ballistic one at all, you STOOOPID crank.



:
: You could be useful if you were not a loose cannon on the gun deck,
: firing in all directions.
:
: : You were correct about Sagnac being explainable by the Coriolis effect,
: when
: : analysed in the rotating frame.
:
: Of course I'm correct.
:
:
: tell us all about it then.
: Where's you equation?

Look it up, I gave it to you. shift = d.sin(v/c)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnac/RLG1.gif




:
: : You obviously read about it somewhere and probably don't really
understand
: : why...
:
: ****head Wilson is a bull****ting sheep shagging JEALOUS LIAR.
: Just because you lack the intelligence to connect the two, Wilson,
: doesn't make me as stupid as you.
:
: : so I'll give you an opportunity to prove you're not a dopey old *******
: : after all.
:
: No way, it's war between us until YOU surrender. You are up against
: a British bulldog. I've got my teeth in your arse and I'm biting.
:
: You don't frighten me...I suppose you still think Britannia Rules The
Waves.

Don't ask me for a truce, I demand unconditional surrender or war continues.
YOU ARE WRONG!


:
: : Would you please explain to Roberts and Jeckyl the role that Coriolis
: plays in
: : Sagnac. I already know the answer. I worked it out myself.
:
: You thought about it after you read it somewhere and probably still
: don't really understand why, and the only place you read it is in
: MY writings, you JEALOUS *******.
:
: Come on! Tell us all about Coriolis and Sagnac.

I did and its on my web page, you jealous ignorant *******.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

:
: I want YOU to tell Tom why his bullet analogy is wrong.


I don't give a **** what you want. That arsehole is a total
clown anyway.


:
: YOU can tell Fecal Jeckyl, Tusseladd, Jeery and Humpty that *I* am right.
:
: I agree you ARE right....but I doubt if you know why.

You are too late for that, I've already drawn the gifs.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:08:33 GMT, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..

:
: Hooray, you finally got something right.
: Androcles is indeed a closet aetherist...

****head Wilson is a bull****ting sheep shagging LIAR.

All right! I have an apology to make....and I will make it on the
condition
that you call a unilateral truce.

You were correct about Sagnac being explainable by the Coriolis effect,
when
analysed in the rotating frame.
You obviously read about it somewhere and probably don't really understand
why...so I'll give you an opportunity to prove you're not a dopey old
*******
after all.

Would you please explain to Roberts and Jeckyl the role that Coriolis
plays in
Sagnac. I already know the answer. I worked it out myself.

Unlikely .. you've not got anything right yet.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:36:39 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

:
: You can have a truce as soon as you explain how there are
: 14 wavelengths going ccw and 10 going cw in rayphases.exe
: when in fact 12 are emitted in each direction.
: Hint:
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif
:
: This shows two identical oscillators moving away from a common point at
: different speeds.

Yep, in the non-rotating frame they do have different speeds, c+v and c-v.
The start point isn't moving. They have identical frequencies, different
speeds and travel different distances in the same time.

They have the SAME frequency in the source - or rotating - frame.
Therefore they have doppler shifted and different frequencies in the
non-rotating frame.
Any engineer who has heard a train whistle go past should know that.

That's what
a different speed is.

In rayphases.exe your two oscillators have different frequencies, 0.7 Hz
and 0.5 Hz.

that's correct. They are doppler shifted in the nonrotating frame.

If you increase the speed to your fake maximum 0.005 then
there are 18 crests blue, a frequency of 0.9 Hz and 6 red crests,
a frequency of 0.3 Hz.
Look, a kiddy jumping up and down on a bus doesn't change the frequency,
it changes the leap forward along the road as the bus increases speed.

That's right.
If you change either the frequency of a moving oscillator or its speed, the
distance between wavecrests IN THE REST FRAME also changes.

In Sagnac, the frequency of both rays remains the same in the SOURCE frame.
Both their speeds AND frequencies are altered by the same proportion in the
rest frame....making their wavelengths absolute and invariant. (since
wavelength is speed/frequency)

: Their wavelengths are different....
Of course they are different, there are exactly the same number of
them in two different distances, you knee-jerking moron.

(knee jerk, knee jerk)
: as my definition of wavelength states.

Your definition of wavelength is absurd. You are a ****ing idiot.

.....if it's so absurd, why have you used it in your little demo?

: You are using the source frame.

WRONG!

It is NOT wrong. YOU HAVE SHOWN THE WAVES EMANATING FROM TWO COMOVING SOURCES
WITH DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES. YOU HAVE DRAWN WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FRAME OF THE
SOURCES.
THE POSITION OF YOUR SOURCES DOES NOT MOVE.

That gif is drawn ENTIRELY in the non rotating frame.
In the rotating source frame the cw and ccw wavelengths
are mirrot images of each other, as are the frequencies and
the distances from the source.

: In a sagnac ring, the two identical oscillators move away at the SAME
speed
: 'c'......

Yep.

: so your illustration is not relevant to Sagnac.

You have the wrong frame and YOU are irrelevant, you ****in'
useless loose cannon.


: In the frame of an observer moving away from the point at v,

Observers are either in the rotating frame or the non-rotating
frame, they are not "moving away". You are ****in' hopeless.
[garbage snipped]

I can see you are nowcopletely lost.

: (24 in each direction)
: Then you can apologise to all the people you've tried to deceive.
:
: This is basically how light behaves in a sagnac ring:
: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe

Same bull****, different wave shape. The wheels have
different frequencies. If the speed were increased to
your fake 0.01 the kiddy jumping up and down on the bus
wouldn't be able to move, that's ridiculous. You have an
aetherialist's model, not a ballistic one at all, you STOOOPID crank.

You should have studied physics instead of house wiring....

: : You were correct about Sagnac being explainable by the Coriolis effect,
: when
: : analysed in the rotating frame.
:
: Of course I'm correct.
:
:
: tell us all about it then.
: Where's you equation?

Look it up, I gave it to you. shift = d.sin(v/c)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnac/RLG1.gif

Hahaha!
No that's not it...but it IS related...


:
: No way, it's war between us until YOU surrender. You are up against
: a British bulldog. I've got my teeth in your arse and I'm biting.
:
: You don't frighten me...I suppose you still think Britannia Rules The
Waves.

Don't ask me for a truce, I demand unconditional surrender or war continues.
YOU ARE WRONG!

"Land of Hope and Glory............''

....that's why it has turned black....



:
: You thought about it after you read it somewhere and probably still
: don't really understand why, and the only place you read it is in
: MY writings, you JEALOUS *******.
:
: Come on! Tell us all about Coriolis and Sagnac.

I did and its on my web page, you jealous ignorant *******.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

It's wrong.
It shows the nonrotating frame. The effect is only relevant in the rotating
frame.

: I want YOU to tell Tom why his bullet analogy is wrong.


I don't give a **** what you want. That arsehole is a total
clown anyway.

I'll give you a clue.
Robert sat on the source and fired machine guns in opposite direction around
the rotating 4 mirror Sagnac apparatus. He concluded that from his point of
view, the bullets went around it symetrically and so must end up arriving at
exactly the same time and at the same rate. Therefore there could be no phase
shift according to BaTh.

What he didn't and still doesn't know is that the paths of inertially moving
objects are CURVED in rotating frames. The CURVED paths of bullets are slightly
different. The angles of reflection at each mirror is compounded at each
reflection.
The bullets arrive at the detector at the emission rate but are out of phase.

THAT IS HOW AND WHERE THE CORIOLIS FORCE CONTRIBUTES TO SAGNAC. THE PATHS ARE
CURVED IN THE ROTATING FRAME.

: YOU can tell Fecal Jeckyl, Tusseladd, Jeery and Humpty that *I* am right.
:
: I agree you ARE right....but I doubt if you know why.

You are too late for that, I've already drawn the gifs.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

It should be drawn using the rotating frame....in which the mirrors remain
still and the light paths are permanently curved.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:36:39 GMT, "Androcles"

wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..

:
: You can have a truce as soon as you explain how there are
: 14 wavelengths going ccw and 10 going cw in rayphases.exe
: when in fact 12 are emitted in each direction.
: Hint:
: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/Dualwave.gif
:
: This shows two identical oscillators moving away from a common point at
: different speeds.

Yep, in the non-rotating frame they do have different speeds, c+v and c-v.
The start point isn't moving.

It is in the non-rotating frame

They have identical frequencies,

In the rotating frame, where the source and detector are at rest .. yes

different speeds

In the non-rotating frame, yes

and travel different distances in the same time.

In the non-rotating frame, yes

They have the SAME frequency in the source - or rotating - frame.

Yes

Therefore they have doppler shifted and different frequencies in the
non-rotating frame.

Yes .. but the detector is moving in the non-rotating frame, so you need to
invert the doppler shift again, and you get the fact that the frequencies
are the same at the detector. As is the speeds, and the time. So they are
in Sync

Any engineer who has heard a train whistle go past should know that.

Not when the engineer is on another train moving at the same speed and
direction as the train blowing its whistle. Derr.

That's what a different speed is.
In rayphases.exe your two oscillators have different frequencies, 0.7 Hz
and 0.5 Hz.

that's correct. They are doppler shifted in the nonrotating frame.

No.. in your animation, they are of different frequencies in the both
frames. Your animation is wrong.

If you increase the speed to your fake maximum 0.005 then
there are 18 crests blue, a frequency of 0.9 Hz and 6 red crests,
a frequency of 0.3 Hz.
Look, a kiddy jumping up and down on a bus doesn't change the frequency,
it changes the leap forward along the road as the bus increases speed.
That's right.
If you change either the frequency of a moving oscillator or its speed,
the
distance between wavecrests IN THE REST FRAME also changes.
In Sagnac, the frequency of both rays remains the same in the SOURCE
frame.
Both their speeds AND frequencies are altered by the same proportion in
the
rest frame....making their wavelengths absolute and invariant. (since
wavelength is speed/frequency)

That's what my animation shows.

[snip bitch fighting and nonsense]

I did and its on my web page, you jealous ignorant *******.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
It's wrong.
It shows the nonrotating frame. The effect is only relevant in the
rotating
frame.

Yeup

That animation shows the light curving for no reason in the non-rotating
frame. . It would travel in straight lines in the non-rotating frame (as
there is nothing to make the light travle in a curve) .. it is in the
rotating frame that there would be an apparent coriolis effect

: I want YOU to tell Tom why his bullet analogy is wrong.
I don't give a **** what you want. That arsehole is a total
clown anyway.
I'll give you a clue.
Robert sat on the source and fired machine guns in opposite direction
around
the rotating 4 mirror Sagnac apparatus. He concluded that from his point
of
view, the bullets went around it symetrically and so must end up arriving
at
exactly the same time and at the same rate. Therefore there could be no
phase
shift according to BaTh.

What he didn't and still doesn't know is that the paths of inertially
moving
objects are CURVED in rotating frames.

Yes .. that is correct .. they appear curved in the rotating frame

The CURVED paths of bullets are slightly
different. The angles of reflection at each mirror is compounded at each
reflection.
The bullets arrive at the detector at the emission rate but are out of
phase.

THAT IS HOW AND WHERE THE CORIOLIS FORCE CONTRIBUTES TO SAGNAC. THE PATHS
ARE
CURVED IN THE ROTATING FRAME.

: YOU can tell Fecal Jeckyl, Tusseladd, Jeery and Humpty that *I* am
right.
: I agree you ARE right....but I doubt if you know why.
You are too late for that, I've already drawn the gifs.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
It should be drawn using the rotating frame....in which the mirrors remain
still and the light paths are permanently curved.

Yes