It is odd that you mention Michelson, because most electrical engineers will recognize that the Michelson-Morley experiment was surprising because it DID NOT detect the motion of the Earth.
It would be interesting to see a video of this device working when the plot in figure 1 was obtained. It would also be interesting to know what the numbers in the plot mean, and why the data points are in a spiral?
And for certain purposes... a nuclear reactor *is* a tea-kettle with a weird geometry...
It is disappointing to read your comments about work of R. Wang, et al, since the essence of their finding is resides in the important discovery that the constant velocity linear motion is as discernible as motion of rotation even in the rigid frame of Sagnac.
To call the work on Generalized Sagnac -“a fiber optic gyro with a weird geometry” is almost the same as to call a nuclear reactor – “just a tea kettle with a weird geometry”.
"In that we don’t have to separate all motions that were mentioned in your remarks. Zero can be set at any position and any motion. The device will read only differences between set numbers and actual motions."
And yet you don't see a 24hr variation as the device rotates around the earth?
On the surface of the earth, at a moderate north latitude we all move at a few hundred miles per hour. If the device were rotated by 180 degrees, then it would report a negative velocity.
(Never mind all of the other velocities previously mentioned)
I read the paper by Wang, et al. . It appears they simply changed the geometry of the ring gyro to elongate the ring and move the Fiber Optic Gyro along with this "linear fiber" (which is actually still a rotating fiber).
If  are truly able to measure velocity, why can't they just shift the FOG on the conveyor without the elaborate loop of fiber (fig2)?
This is just a fiber optic gyro with a weird geometry - ALL of the fiber in  fig 2 is rotating in the same clockwise rotation.
It is great that you found this VERY intriguing, and it is surprising that you just found out about this theoretical concept since it is almost a decade old!!!
Regarding similarity of the theoretical model with Einstein’s “light clock” which in the original work called “Grethen or Gertrude Clock” I would advise you to compare the description of this contraption in its original form to the description in the modern books of Physics. I think you will find serious discrepancies between original Einstein train of thoughts and its modern interpretation and especially our theoretical model.
Regarding a preferred or as you may call it privilege frame of references. As it stated in all our work including the theoretical page in web site “space-navigation” we stipulate that:
“It has to be taking into account that the devices of Non-Inertial Navigation do not provide grounds for establishing the preferred frame of references and measurements done by such devices are to be calibrated in relative terms only.”
In that we don’t have to separate all motions that were mentioned in your remarks. Zero can be set at any position and any motion. The device will read only differences between set numbers and actual motions.
The graphical representation, you have referred to, illustrates Einstein’s theory of moving clocks and objects, but it does not addresses the difference between distances that the two beams travel inside of the contraption in motion. The sited in the video Michelson work on interferometery and especially dual path of the light beams holds the key to this riddle
To clarify some uncertainty on this subject I would suggest the article by R. Wang et al. ‘Generalized Sagnac Effect’ (Physical Review, Letters 93, 143901.) We have utilized this finding in building linear Sagnac model.
Quick conclusions not always define a direct line to the rightness.
Common Statement by the Author:
Some recent remarks on the article demonstrate serious misconception and/or misapplication of fundamental concepts of physics. The following information is provided to clear any ambiguities on the subject.
Since we are talking about measurements inside of the object in motion, you have to visualize yourself and a gizmo that consists of a photon, emitter, and receiver traveling with constant velocity motion along of an ‘X’ axis. The emitter and the receiver are set perpendicular to the velocity of motion.
Under Newtonian law of physics a force of inertia F=mu is applied to every particle and every object in the system in motion, except massless photons. -Hence, photons that are emitted in the system in motion travel independent from all parts of inertial system including their own emitter/receiver.- By the time the photon will reach the receiver, whole system will move and the photon will strike the receiver in the place which correlates to the position of the system in the time when that photon was emitted, providing the reference point of the system’s position in the past. Knowing the past and the present positions of the system we may interpolate the speed and the direction of motion of the system.
Please notice that the highlighted statement is nothing more than the Second Postulate of Einstein’s ‘Special Relativity’.
Regarding the statements of absolute frame of references.
It has to be taken into account that since there are no preferred frames of reference, all measurements performed by the above described methods are done in relative terms only.
There is nothing new in practical applications of the uniqueness of light. It was widely utilized by Michelson, Sagnac, R. Wang and others in their classical experiments.
We took it one step further, applying the noted uniqueness of light to the measurements of all types of motions.
"Standing Wave Sensor" by E.W. Silvertooth and S.F. Jacobs, Applied Optics /Vol. 22. #9/1 May 1983.
"Experimental detection of the ether" - E.W. Silvertooth
Speculations in Science and Technology, 10, No 1, 3-7, (1986)
[See also "On the Silvertooth Experiment" - Harold Aspden - ibid.]
Abstract: Michelson-Morley type experiments are shown to be non-sequitors because their logic fails to take into account the relationship between wavelength and propagation velocity. An experimental demonstration of anisotropy in wavelength is described.