Re: More speed confusion


"G" <gehan.ameresekere@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c0793eca-16fd-4648-9161-1ad5ef3c3f18@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 15, 2:49 pm, greenba <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 11, 12:12 pm, G <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 11, 12:01 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Peter Riedt wrote:
On Jun 11, 3:49 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:11 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:50 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The phase difference between the beams is given
by the equation:
delta_phi = 8*pi*A*w/lambda*c
Is this the same equation you offered earlier ?
This formula is experimentally verified in a high number
of working FOGs as you are reading this.
It is remarkable that the index of refraction of the fibre
doesn't affect the phase difference, and this can only be
because thespeedof light in the fibre transform as predicted
by SR, as I show here:
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
Only cranks will deny irrefutable facts.
Are you a crank?
Cranks make unfounded assertions and peer-review
their own publications. It seems to be you rather
than the original poster that looks cranky.
It is an irrefutable fact that the predictions of SR
are consistent with the results of both Fizeau's
experiment and FOGs.
Do you dispute that?
Of course I dispute it!
Scientists don't deal in irrefutable facts.
The Scientific Method
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
As usual, you don't understand the references you are giving.
You are obviously ignorant of the scientific method, since
you think it is saying that facts don't exist!

Of course scientists deal with irrefutable facts!

If an experiment is performed, and the measured values
are consistent with the predictions of a theory, then
it is an irrefutable fact that the measured values
are consistent with the predictions of the theory.

So I challenge you again.
Do you dispute any of the statements below?

#1: It is an irrefutable fact that SR predicts that the x
in the equation for thespeedof light in moving water,
c' = c/n + x*v, is x = (1-1/n^2) = 0.437

#2: It is an irrefutable fact that Michelson measured the x
to be x = 0.434 ±
0.02http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf

#3: It is an irrefutable fact that thespeedof light in
moving water predicted by SR is consistent with
the results of Fizeau's experiment.

Only cranks will deny irrefutable facts.
And only exceptionally stupid cranks will deny
the existence of irrefutable facts.

Do you belong to the latter class?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Paul, you are correct in the interpretation of the stated facts but
the most relevant fact is that Fizeau did not send a car up the
water
but a ray of light! The question here is what mechanism or force
will
compel material bodies to modify their closing speeds to comply with
AE's dictum that they must obey his command and reduce theirspeedif
they approach each other.

Again: All the speeds are constant!

Fizeau's findings apply to light and cannot
be transferred to objects unless AE or you can demonstrate how the
mechanics and force to do so are possible.

Peter Riedt

OK.
So you accept that thespeedof light in a medium
transform as predicted by SR.

If we we send a light pulse through a volume of water,
thespeedof the light in the frame of reference where
the water is stationary is c/n.

Look at the following thought experiment:

Let us sent a light-pulse through a tube containing water,
and at the same time send a particle (like an electron)
parallel to the tube, with thespeedc/n.

___________________________
L-> |___________________________|light detector
P-> c/n |particle detector

The light pulse and the particle will obviously
hit the detectors simultaneously.

Now, let a frame of reference move to the left
with thespeedv relative to the 'stationary' frame.

How exactly can you get a frame of reference move to the left?
Maybe Sue has a clever link about FoR's that she can share
By the way, alternate explanations have been proposed, though I have
not examined them for correctness yet.

The speeds of the light pulse and of the particle
are measured in this frame of reference.
Since the light pulse and the particle are side
by side the whole time, the measured speeds must
necessarily be the same for both.
We know that thisspeedis c/n + v(1-n^-2).

Thespeedof massive objects must with logical
necessity transform in exactly the same way
as thespeedof light in a medium.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Left is nomorea problem than right. What is your concern?

Ben

My concern was the moving of a reference frame /coordinate system .-
why have two coordinate systems? Why not have one coordinate system
and a transformation for to all moving points within the coordinate
system?

===============================================
Because it is natural and makes sense.
For example, you board a train in City A and travel 200 miles
to City B. While on the train you walk slowly down the corridor for
5 miles (in the coordinate frame of the track) to the restaurant car, sit
and have a snack there for 20 miles and then walk back your seat 3
miles, the train having travelled a mile in the coordinate frame
of the track while you were walking the corridor.
That is NOT how we describe the events.
In the frame of the train you walk down the corridor for 200 feet
to the restaurant car, taking a minute, sit and have a snack there
for zero feet and twenty minutes and then walk back your seat 200
feet, again taking a minute.
When you arrive at City B you've taken exactly the same time and
travelled exactly the same distance as your companion, 200 miles
in 4 hours.
You switch between coordinate frames without thinking about it,
we all do, and they are not in any way special.

Does walking 5 miles and coming back 3 miles make sense?
It does in the right context, but not if you walked to the restaurant
car and back and tell your companion you walked 8 miles in 2
minutes. She'll say you are nuts.
Does involving the speed of light in the same scenario make sense?
No. Einstein and his cranks are stupid.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Greenness of cycling?
    ... > frame and still going strong so that might get there in time. ... 100,000 miles, but that's mainly because I've had bikes nicked. ... A man asked me for new 27" tyres today (I was looking after the bike shop ... replacements, but otherwise it's still going strong. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • So, you wanna fuckin ride report, eh...
    ... This past Friday Browneye n' I went to Tacoma, ... or fuck all to do so we headed to Hwy 101 and decided to go south. ... owned it for 22 miles back to town. ... refurbished frame. ...
    (rec.motorcycles.harley)
  • Re: So, you wanna fuckin ride report, eh...
    ... This past Friday Browneye n' I went to Tacoma, ... owned it for 22 miles back to town. ... Most of th' time I prefer to ride solo, but there's a few folks who I ... refurbished frame. ...
    (rec.motorcycles.harley)
  • FS: Giant TCR composite, Litespeed Ultimate, and parts.
    ... the frame has the elegant bent seat tube. ... miles. ... 1" reynolds ouzo pro carbon fork. ... 2002 velomax ascent pro carbon tubular wheelset. ...
    (rec.bicycles.marketplace)
  • Re: Einsteinian Relativity...all Bluff and Bullshit
    ... If I use a ship instead a plane I still have a stride of 200 miles, ... they are measured in their own frame. ... Your footsteps define an ABSOLUTE length ... He says a sodium source has a "universal" wavelength of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)