Re: More speed confusion

On Jun 10, 9:07 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 10, 12:20 am, Peter Riedt <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 10, 4:25 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Sue... wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:01 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
On Jun 8, 6:02 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
That speeds transform according to the 'velocity addition formula'
is confirmed by Fizeau's experiment as well as by any FOG.
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf
Experimental evidence trumps your intuition.
--
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
Paul, Fizeau's experiment in 1851 did not produce the formula that
Einstein invented to make sure that no speed exceeded c. Fizeau used
interferometric procedures to find fringe shifts but these were
smaller than predicted. AE applied something like poetic licenses to
jump from Fizeau's light speed in moving water experiment to
relativity.
Fizeau's experiment has been repeated many times with the same result.
Michelson's repetition of Fizeau's experiment:

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf

The speed of light c' in water moving the speed v can be written:
   c' = c/n + xv
where c is the speed of light in vacuum, n is the refraction index
and x is the "drag coefficient".

Michelson measured x to be 0.434 +/- 0.02

The speed of light relative to the water is c/n, and
the water is moving with the speed v relative to the lab frame.
According to SR, the speed c/n transformed to the lab frame is:
(The 'velocity addition formula' follows from the Lorentz transform.)

[...]

Your misrepresentation of SR snipped.

<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:

     All inertial frames are totally equivalent
     for the performance of all physical experiments.

In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Note that this is an extremely good approximation.

I am about to use an extremely good  approximation
of the earth to find a physicians office. If I
complete the journey to post to this forum again,
I trust you will accept my navigation with an
extremely good approximation as proof of a
flat earth.  :-)

When v < 10m/s, the error in x is less than 4*10^-6,
which is several orders of magnitude less than
the error bars in Michelson's measurements.

The refraction index in water is n = 1.33
  x = (1-1/n^2) = 0.435
which is in accordance with Michleson's measurement.

It is a fact that Fizeau's experiment confirms SR.

SR is absurd.  That is why Einstein formulated GR.

Sue...

And so does a fibre optic gyro.

You are free to have any opinion you want about SR,
but only cranks will deny irrefutable facts.

QED

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Paul, using the addition of speeds formula in the short form (100km/hr
+100km/hr)/(1+100km/hr*100km/hr) and converting the speeds in the
divisor to a fraction of c removes the problem of unlike units and
gives an answer of  199.9999778km/sec which is what AE would have
expected.

I'm sorry, Peter, but you are arithmetically challenged here. Basic
skills first, deeper concepts second.

The speeds in (v1+v2)/(1+v2*v2) need to be converted to fractions of c
BEFORE plugging them into this formula, and the result will be a speed
expressed as a fraction of c. You've gotten yourself all tangled up
with units.

However the formula is a mathematical gimmick which is not
substantiated by experimental proofs.

Ah, but it is, in numerous experiments. The ones I'm most familiar
with are in accelerator physics.

No doubt you have seen this in accelerator physics:

<< The main types of particle combinations used at RHIC
are p + p, d + Au, Cu + Cu and Au + Au. The projectiles
typically travel at a speed of 99.995% of the speed of
light in vacuum. For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass
energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV (or 100 GeV per nucleus); >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider

That calculation seems to support Peter rather than
Paul.

Sue...


Fizeau’s experiment only proves
that c in flowing water is different from c in vacuo. The speed of
material bodies is not related to the speed of light in water or in
space.

Peter Riedt



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More speed confusion
    ... Paul, Fizeau's experiment in 1851 did not produce the formula that ... the water is moving with the speed v relative to the lab frame. ... No doubt you have seen this in accelerator physics: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More speed confusion
    ... the water is moving with the speed v relative to the lab frame. ... Paul, using the addition of speeds formula in the short form (100km/hr ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Please help! ...trying to revive an abandoned bonsai
    ... and almost no water for over a month. ... Lee and Paul ... Hi Paul, Perhaps you already know, Ficus Macrophylla is the Moreton Bay ... of the Sydney based Bonsai clubs, or if you PM me, I ...
    (rec.arts.bonsai)
  • Re: Beck Hasnt Seen a Half-monkey
    ... On 10/23/2010 9:45 PM, Paul J Gans wrote: ... There are respectable conservatives. ... I'll use one of your favorite examples: water. ... Even a totalitarian government would have trouble with such a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Beck Hasnt Seen a Half-monkey
    ... Paul J Gans wrote: ... There are respectable conservatives. ... I'll use one of your favorite examples: water. ...
    (talk.origins)