Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 18:32 On Dec 17, 6:23 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> And get rid of the stupid water. > >The whole point I am trying to make is due to the water. > >Einstein on Fizeau's Experiment > >http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/EonFizeau.html > ... > >BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS TRAVELING THROUGH THE WATER WHICH IS AT REST > >RELATIVE TO THE EMBANKMENT THE LIGHT TRAVELS FROM A AND B TO M'. > > Note that Einstein here REFUTES what you claim, W = w + v (W = total > speed of light in moving water, w = speed of light in water [less > than c due to optical properties of water] and v = velocity of water) > and Fizeau's Experiment agrees with an approximation of the Lorenz > Transform W = (w + v) / (1 + wv/cc). > > If you plug in c for w, you'll get W=c, meaning the speed of light is > constant no matter what speed v you compare it to. > > (it makes me laugh when a crank claims a website supports his claim when it > actually refutes it!) "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not" The above sentence means says the light is traveling relative to the water. Since the water is at rest relative to the embankment, the light travels from A and B to M'.
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 19:14 On Dec 17, 6:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 6:23 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >> And get rid of the stupid water. > > >The whole point I am trying to make is due to the water. > > >Einstein on Fizeau's Experiment > > >http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/EonFizeau.html > > ... > > >BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS TRAVELING THROUGH THE WATER WHICH IS AT REST > > >RELATIVE TO THE EMBANKMENT THE LIGHT TRAVELS FROM A AND B TO M'. > > > Note that Einstein here REFUTES what you claim, W = w + v (W = total > > speed of light in moving water, w = speed of light in water [less > > than c due to optical properties of water] and v = velocity of water) > > and Fizeau's Experiment agrees with an approximation of the Lorenz > > Transform W = (w + v) / (1 + wv/cc). > > > If you plug in c for w, you'll get W=c, meaning the speed of light is > > constant no matter what speed v you compare it to. > > > (it makes me laugh when a crank claims a website supports his claim when it > > actually refutes it!) > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not" > In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity c with respect to the aether, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not.
From: Inertial on 17 Dec 2009 19:20 I'm unique
From: Michael Moroney on 17 Dec 2009 21:02 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 17, 6:23=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> (it makes me laugh when a crank claims a website supports his claim when = >it >> actually refutes it!) >"In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly >have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes >place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the >latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not" Note they describe the light as travelling at w, not c, because the speed of light in a non-vacuum is not c. Therefore the usual speed comparisons apply, you have to compare the speed w to _something_. It certainly makes sense to base the speed of light in (constantly moving) water to the frame of the water where the water is stationary. Also, Einstein explicitly disproved your claim, W = w + v. I see you didn't (couldn't) address that. >The above sentence means says the light is traveling relative to the >water. Aha! Well, since your misinterpretation of Fizeau's Experiment is why you insist on having all that water around, and the whole basis of Fizeau's Experiment is that water (and other substances) slow light, it is relevant the speed of light in water is /not/ c, but w (which is equal to c/n, where n is ~1.33 for water). So, you have to redo everything in _all_ your posts with the speed of light as w (~0.75 c), it'll take light 1.33 years to go from the rear to the front of your 1 light year long train, if it's filled with water. Now, let's calculate what happens with our 1 ly long train, travelling at 0.25 * c. u = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) with v (speed of train) = 0.25 c and w (speed of light in water) = 0.75, we get u ~= 0.84 c. (and about 0.61 c if the light is going against the motion of the train) The light in the train, in this case, does go faster than the light alongside the train, but there is no contradiction as it's now Lorenz-transform speed addition, and nothing ever exceeds c. Also, if we repeat this with, instead of water, a substance with n=1 (such as the vacuum), we get w=c, and the speed of light in the train (as seen by the embankment) = u = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) = (0.25c + *c)/(1+(0.25c * c)/c^2) = 1.25c/1.25 = c. Therefore, the speed of light is c in all frames. Maybe tomorrow I'll calculate what the fish in WaterWorld see when their WaterTrain passes by at 0.25 c, calculating that their index of refraction is 1.33 for water. Or, maybe not. But none of this affects whether train passenger M' in air (vacuum) see the strikes A' and B' simultaneously or not, this is no longer Einstein's gedanken experiment, not with all that water around. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 21:07
On Dec 17, 9:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 17, 6:23=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > > >> (it makes me laugh when a crank claims a website supports his claim when = > >it > >> actually refutes it!) > >"In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > >have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > >place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > >latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not" > > Note they describe the light as travelling at w, not c, because the speed > of light in a non-vacuum is not c. Therefore the usual speed comparisons > apply, you have to compare the speed w to _something_. It certainly > makes sense to base the speed of light in (constantly moving) water to > the frame of the water where the water is stationary. > > Also, Einstein explicitly disproved your claim, W = w + v. I see > you didn't (couldn't) address that. > > >The above sentence means says the light is traveling relative to the > >water. > > Aha! > > Well, since your misinterpretation of Fizeau's Experiment is why you > insist on having all that water around, and the whole basis of Fizeau's > Experiment is that water (and other substances) slow light, it is relevant > the speed of light in water is /not/ c, but w (which is equal to c/n, where > n is ~1.33 for water). > > So, you have to redo everything in _all_ your posts with the speed of > light as w (~0.75 c), it'll take light 1.33 years to go from the rear > to the front of your 1 light year long train, if it's filled with water. > Now, let's calculate what happens with our 1 ly long train, travelling at > 0.25 * c. u = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) with v (speed of train) = 0.25 c and > w (speed of light in water) = 0.75, we get u ~= 0.84 c. (and about 0.61 c > if the light is going against the motion of the train) The light in the > train, in this case, does go faster than the light alongside the train, > but there is no contradiction as it's now Lorenz-transform speed addition, > and nothing ever exceeds c. Also, if we repeat this with, instead of water, > a substance with n=1 (such as the vacuum), we get w=c, and the speed of > light in the train (as seen by the embankment) = u = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) = > (0.25c + *c)/(1+(0.25c * c)/c^2) = 1.25c/1.25 = c. Therefore, the speed > of light is c in all frames. > > Maybe tomorrow I'll calculate what the fish in WaterWorld see when > their WaterTrain passes by at 0.25 c, calculating that their index of > refraction is 1.33 for water. Or, maybe not. > > But none of this affects whether train passenger M' in air (vacuum) > see the strikes A' and B' simultaneously or not, this is no longer > Einstein's gedanken experiment, not with all that water around. > > I'm glad we got that cleared up. You didn't answer the question. The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel from A and B to M'? |