Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Paul B. Andersen on 7 Jun 2010 15:23 Forgotten the challenge, Ralph? If we write the speed of light in moving water as c/n + xv then the fringe displacement in M&M's repetition of Fizeau will be: delta = (4Lvn^2/lambda.c)x Do you refute it, or do you accept that this equation is correct? Will you keep fleeing, Ralph? -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 7 Jun 2010 18:03 On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:23:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >Forgotten the challenge, Henry? > >If we write the speed of light in moving water as c/n + xv >then the fringe displacement in M&M's repetition of Fizeau will be: > delta = (4Lvn^2/lambda.c)x > >Do you refute it, or do you accept that this equation is correct? Any equation that does not include the phase shift during atomic interactions cannot be correct. >Will you keep fleeing, Henry? From what? Relativist ignorance? Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 7 Jun 2010 18:08 On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:20:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >Forgotten the challenge, Henryh? > >If we write the speed of light in moving water as c/n + xv >then the fringe shift in M&M's repetition of Fizeau will be: > delta = (4Lvn2/lambda.c)x > >Do you refute it, or do you accept that this equation is correct? > >Will you keep fleeing, Henry? When are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 7 Jun 2010 20:47 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:23:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >>Forgotten the challenge, Henry? >> >>If we write the speed of light in moving water as c/n + xv >>then the fringe displacement in M&M's repetition of Fizeau will be: >> delta = (4Lvn^2/lambda.c)x >> >>Do you refute it, or do you accept that this equation is correct? > > Any equation that does not include the phase shift during atomic > interactions cannot be correct. Do you have a reason for this, or are you just throwing chaff? The behavior of light in a medium is quite well understood, though apparently not by you. > >>Will you keep fleeing, Henry? > > From what? Relativist ignorance? > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: YBM on 7 Jun 2010 21:24
Henry Wilson DSc a �crit : > x = x in ALL frames. All distances are absolute AND INVARIANT. x' = x - vt, pure Galilean... Do you deny the possibility of any motion? BTW it is true that x = x in all frames, since a number is always equal to itself. This has nothing to do with distances or invariances. You're really a pathetic idiot, Ralph Rabbidge. |