Original sentence: However, Herbert Ives who interpreted special relativity differently from Einstein, argued in 1938 that "the Sagnac experiment in its essentials involves no consideration of rotation", which is debatable.Some reasoned that if the speed of light is a constant for the observer, then for the observer on the rotating ring light should take the same time to travel each way and no effect should occur.That argument appears to be invalid, as the rotating ring is an accelerated frame of reference, while the constancy of the speed of light () applies only in inertial frames of reference.The result of the Sagnac experiment has been cited by many as a disproof of the theory of relativity
Edited sentence: The reasoning is that if the speed of light is a constant for the observer, then for the observer on the rotating ring light should take the same time to travel each way and no effect should occur.The result of the Sagnac experiment has been cited by many as a disproof of the theory of relativity, starting with Ives in 1938.This argument does not hold because the rotating ring is an accelerated frame of reference, while the constancy of the speed of light () applies only in inertial frames of reference