Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 8 Jun 2010 05:52 On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:47:11 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(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. when are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: eric gisse on 8 Jun 2010 19:06 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:47:11 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(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. > > when are you going to say something intelligent? Chaff it is! > > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 9 Jun 2010 06:40 On 08.06.2010 00:03, 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. The fully qualified physicist with degrees in math and physics, Doctor Ralph Rabbidge, yet again displays his incredible ignorance of math and physics. Do you see that 'n' in the equation, Ralph? It's called the 'refraction index' of the dielectric, and the phase velocity of light in the dielectric frame is c/n per definition of the 'n'. That means that in the dielectric frame the phase shift caused by the atomic interactions in the dielectric is 2pi over the distance lambda = c/fn. The phase shift caused by the atomic interactions in a dielectric has been known for more than a century, Ralph. How come you didn't know that? > >> Will you keep fleeing, Henry? > > From what? Relativist ignorance? From the challenge: 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 The challenge is to answer this question: Do you still refute it? In case the answer is yes, please show what you think the correct equation should be. I see you now have given up referring to Renshaw's calculation, so now you had to invent a new idiocy: you claim that the equation which predicts the difference in the phase shifts of the two light beams does not include the phase shift caused by atomic interactions in the water. Make my day, repeat that claim! Will you keep fleeing, Ralph? -- Paul, chasing the chicken http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 9 Jun 2010 18:23 On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 12:40:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 08.06.2010 00:03, 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. > >The fully qualified physicist with degrees in math and physics, >Doctor, Henry Wilson yet again displays his incredible ignorance >of math and physics. > >Do you see that 'n' in the equation, Henry ? >It's called the 'refraction index' of the dielectric, >and the phase velocity of light in the dielectric frame >is c/n per definition of the 'n'. >That means that in the dielectric frame the phase shift >caused by the atomic interactions in the dielectric >is 2pi over the distance lambda = c/fn. That would be true only if light travels at exactly c BETWEEN atoms. >The phase shift caused by the atomic interactions in >a dielectric has been known for more than a century, Henry. It is assumed. How can you distinguish between a phase shift and a time lag? >How come you didn't know that? How come you just decided to mention it after I raised the subject? > >> Will you keep fleeing, Henry? > > > > From what? Relativist ignorance? > > From the challenge: > >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 I thought you claimed that the speed in water was c. >The challenge is to answer this question: >Do you still refute it? Renshaw refuted it. >In case the answer is yes, please show what >you think the correct equation should be. > >I see you now have given up referring to Renshaw's >calculation, so now you had to invent a new idiocy: >you claim that the equation which predicts the difference >in the phase shifts of the two light beams does not include >the phase shift caused by atomic interactions in the water. > >Make my day, repeat that claim! > >Will you keep fleeing, Henry ? If you want to talk about phase shifts, what about the shift from the 45 mirror in a sagnac interferometer? It affects only one beam. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 20:52
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:34501691b1ub8tk2fjvugb1fu2cie4s468(a)4ax.com... [snip] > When the human race comes to its senses, the new six days of the week will > be > named Wday, Iday, Lday, Sday, Oday, Nday. Bahaha .. you're such a clown. |