Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:20:32 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..."
<suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That isn't what the Fizeau experiment shows.

It is exactly what the Fizeau experiment shows. Consider a transmitter
and receiver at the origin (0,0), connected by a wire of length L that
runs back along the x-axis to the point (-L/2,0) and then doubles back
to the origin. If the receiver is moving (inertially) in the positive
x direction, pulling its end of the wire along with it, one segment of
the wire is at rest relative to the transmitter, and the other segment
is at rest relative to the receiver. For both the receiver and the
transmitter, one of the segments of the wire is moving, so it is a
moving conductor, and the speed of the propagating signal undergoes
Fresnel's "partial convection", which of course is just a first-order
approximation of the relativistic speed composition effect.

The light does not couple out of the cable and hop the the far end.
You are totally silly if think the electrical length of a cable changes
by moving it.

The optical path length of an optical fiber does indeed change if one
end of the optical cable is moving relative to the other. The same
applies to electrical signals in a copper wire. The same applies to
water flowing in a hose. If you don't understand this elementary and
self-evident fact, you are very far from being in a position to have a
meaningful opinion on the validity of various physical theories. In
fact, you are a fair distance from being a mentally competent human
being.

Your misunderstanding here is identical to that of many idiots
regarding the simple Sagnac effect. Just as you claim the light
travels "the same distance" through a cable in both directions,
regardless of whether the cable is accelerating, they argue that a
pulse of light in a Sagnac device travels "the same distance" around
the ring, regardless of whether the ring is accelerating. In both
cases the argument is plainly mistaken. This isn't an issue unique to
special relativity. Your error applies just as much to water flowing
through a hose as it does to electromagnetic waves propagating through
a cable.

I urge you to acquaint yourself with some basic physics... and
rational thought. By the way, setting aside all your diversionary
tactics, the fact that should be occupying your mind right now is that
the theory of retarded potentials entails the same "time dilation"
effects as does special relativity. Since you've based your entire
world view on the contrary belief, it seems that you have some
soul-searching to do... which raises an interesting questions: Do
crackpots have souls?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relativity: An orientation for beginners
    ... seeking some help in understanding the mysteries of relativity. ... stationary magnetic exists only when the wire is moving. ... as are all waves with which we are familiar, waves in a medium. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Radar Doppler Question
    ... You do know that a signal reflected from a moving target undergoes two ... v is the relative radial velocity. ... the radial velocity relative to the receiver and v_t is the radial ... It is the formula resulting from Relativity. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Timelike separation of lightpulses
    ... the receiver was either closer or farther ... mean that the pulses have different velocities w.r.t the receiver. ... is moving relative the observer. ... know there is no such in Special Relativity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... moving back and forth with respect to them and making ... again w.r.t. the original frame. ... At this time there are no direct tests of length contraction, ... A current-carrying wire is observed to be electrically neutral in its ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Grounding A Radio ?
    ... My receiver now has a ground wire running from the chassis to a nearby water ... This would be from the radio chassis to the ground bar, ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)