Prev: Preserving/Airtightening Foods with Argon?
Next: The lying NCDC
From: Surfer on 26 Feb 2010 12:26
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:58:27 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Feb 26, 8:50 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:22:34 -0800 (PST), "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 25, 11:37 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote:
>> >> If an optical medium at rest in a local preferred frame has a
>> >> refractive index of n, the speed of light through the medium is
>> >> reduced to c/n.
>>
>> >> If the medium is moving at speed v relative to the frame, then the
>> >> speed of light through the moving medium is often calculated using the
>> >> SR velocity addition formula. This gives,
>>
>> >> c/n + v
>> >> -------------------
>> >> 1 - (c/n) v/c^2
>>
>> >> However, this calculation ignores the following possibility.
>>
>> >> If the preferred frame is the rest frame of aether or the like, then
>> >> the forward speed of the medium will cause it to experience in its own
>> >> frame an opposing flow of aether of speed -v.
>>
>> >> This will cause a Fresnel drag effect that will reduce the speed of
>> >> light in the medium from c/n to
>>
>> >> c/n - v(1-1/n^2)
>>
>> >> So it is this speed rather than c/n that should be plugged into the
>> >> velocity addition formula.
>>
>> >> The resultant speed is a little complicated to write here, but if such
>> >> speeds are used as the speeds for the parallel arm of an MMX and a
>> >> speed of c/n is used for the transverse arm, then the difference
>> >> between the travel times for the two arms turns out to be,
>>
>> >> L (n^2 - 2) (n^2 - 1) v^2
>> >> ------------------------------- + O[v]^4
>> >> n c^3
>>
>> >> This is equivalent to Demjanov's formula which appears in,
>> >> "Physical interpretation of the fringe shift measured on Michelson
>> >> interferometer in optical media"
>> >> V.V. Demjanov
>> >> Physics Letters A
>> >> Volume 374, Issue 9, 15 February 2010, Pages 1110-1112
>>
>> >> The above may explain how Demjanov's formula is able to account for
>> >> experimental results.
>>
>> >> Surfer
>>
>> >The Demjanov paper is an embarassment. But again, Phys.Lett. A. is
>> >known to publish garbage periodically (they published the Consoli and
>> >Constanzo paper). The Demjanov formula has already been falsified by
>> >experiment. Twice:
>>
>> ># Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), pg 258.
>>
>> >A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex (n = 1.49),
>> >and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe. They report a
>> >null result with an upper limit on v�ther of 6.64 km/s.
>>
>> Demjanov's formula for time difference contains a factor equal to (n^2
>> - 2). A true null result for perspex would imply this factor should
>> be (n^2 - 2.22).
>>
>> The Shamir and Fox result would then be consistent with Demjanov's
>> formula.
>>
>
>Nope, SR predicts a ZERO result and Shamir CONFIRMS it.
>
A upper limit of 6.64 km/s doesn't look like confirmation of zero to
me.

In addition, a factor of (n^2 - 2.22) in Demjanov's formula would also
predict a zero result for perspex.

So I don't see Shamir's experiment as being adequate to distinguish
between the two cases.

>
>>
>>
>> ># Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489
>> >(1974).
>>
>> >A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an upper
>> >limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one-millionth of
>> >the Earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its rotational
>> >velocity.
>>
>> This is a different kind of experiment so can't validly be claimed to
>> falsify Demjanov's formula.
>>
>
>Of course it does, dishonest imbecile. It shows that light speed
>propagates at exactly c/n, disproving the Demjanov crackpot .
>
>On an interesting note; DEmjanov did NOT run any experiment.
>
I think you are being a little paranoid.

Can't you see replacement of SR with something more sophisticated as
an opportunity rather than a threat?


From: eric gisse on 26 Feb 2010 17:40
Surfer wrote:

[...]

>>
> A upper limit of 6.64 km/s doesn't look like confirmation of zero to
> me.

Explain to me, in your own words, the concept of the "error bar".

[...]
From: BURT on 26 Feb 2010 18:20
On Feb 26, 2:40 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Surfer wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > A upper limit of 6.64 km/s doesn't look like confirmation of zero to
> > me.
>
> Explain to me, in your own words, the concept of the "error bar".
>
> [...]

Light is a nonlocal frame moving at the speed limit. It is not
infinitely fast.

Mitch Raemsch

From: Surfer on 26 Feb 2010 23:04
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:40:18 -0800, eric gisse
<jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Surfer wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>
>> A upper limit of 6.64 km/s doesn't look like confirmation of zero to
>> me.
>
>Explain to me, in your own words, the concept of the "error bar".
>
Originally a graphical representation of possible or probable error
which may be calculated as standard error, 95% CL or some other way.

These days a general term for such values.



From: eric gisse on 26 Feb 2010 23:27
Surfer wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:40:18 -0800, eric gisse
> <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Surfer wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>
>>> A upper limit of 6.64 km/s doesn't look like confirmation of zero to
>>> me.
>>
>>Explain to me, in your own words, the concept of the "error bar".
>>
> Originally a graphical representation of possible or probable error
> which may be calculated as standard error, 95% CL or some other way.
>
> These days a general term for such values.

Good. Now what is an 'upper limit'?

If I say that an experiment has shown an upper limit of '6', is that
consistent or inconsistent with "zero"?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Preserving/Airtightening Foods with Argon?
Next: The lying NCDC