Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480018 > unrolled thread

Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-16 23:34 -0600
    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 08:04 -0800
      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-17 09:27 -0800
      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-17 15:50 -0600
        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-17 17:01 -0800
          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 23:23 -0800
            Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 04:58 -0800
              Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-18 05:16 -0800
                Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-18 18:52 -0800
                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-18 23:14 -0800
                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-18 23:33 -0800
                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 08:01 -0800
                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 10:01 -0800
                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 12:43 -0800
                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 13:19 -0800
                            Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 13:58 -0800
                              Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 14:47 -0800
                                Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 15:56 -0800
                                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-19 23:39 -0800
                                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 09:56 -0800
                                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 10:49 -0800
                                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 11:31 -0800
                                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 12:27 -0800
                                            Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 13:29 -0800
                                              Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 14:04 -0800
                                                Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 14:26 -0800
                                                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 23:38 -0800
                                                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 07:29 -0800
                                                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 12:34 -0800
                                                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 14:02 -0800
                                                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-21 15:49 -0800
                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 14:58 +0000
                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 10:08 -0800
                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:30 +0000
                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 14:44 -0800
                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 23:41 -0800
                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000
                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-20 15:00 -0800
    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 16:50 +0000
      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-22 17:04 +0000
        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 17:31 +0000
          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-23 02:28 +0000
            Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 22:20 +0000
              Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-23 16:57 -0800
                Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 01:14 +0000
                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-23 17:47 -0800
                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-23 23:19 -0800
                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 19:10 +0000
                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-24 12:02 -0800
                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-24 12:55 -0800
                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-24 15:22 -0800
              Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-24 03:19 +0000
                Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-23 23:22 -0800
                Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:59 +0000
                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-25 01:17 +0000
                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-24 23:57 -0800
                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-25 09:47 -0800
                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-25 10:16 -0800
                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-25 13:09 -0800
                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-27 00:54 +0100
                            Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-26 23:36 -0800
                              Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-27 23:18 +0100
                                Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 23:24 -0800
                                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Edko Czka <ziue@wuasrvi.kw> - 2018-12-28 21:15 +0000
                                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-29 01:49 +0100
                                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-29 16:54 -0800
                                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-31 00:21 +0100
                                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-30 23:57 -0800
                                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-02 21:59 +0100
                                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-31 11:48 -0800
                                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-02 22:11 +0100
                                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2019-01-02 13:30 -0800
                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 10:36 -0800
                            Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 11:19 -0800
                              Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 12:47 -0800
                                Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 14:09 -0800
                                  Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-27 15:34 -0800
                                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 23:50 -0800
                                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 00:17 -0800
                                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 10:19 -0800
                                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-28 05:29 -0800
                                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-28 22:40 -0600
                                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-29 15:20 -0800
                                    Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 00:08 -0800
                                      Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 02:54 -0800
                                        Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 03:20 -0800
                                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 03:53 -0800
                                          Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) yeurohenry@gmail.com - 2018-12-28 12:08 -0800
                                            Re: Measuring the Relativity of Simultaneity (conclusion of the reboot) maluwozniak@gmail.com - 2018-12-29 16:37 -0800

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#480432

On 22/12/2018 17:04, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 17/12/2018 05:34, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 12/16/18 9:28 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
>>>> But are you sure the RoS hasn't
>>>> actually be tested?
> 
>>> Yes.
> 
>> I believe you Tom/
> 
>>> all it needs is recognizing that the speed of
>>> light in a fiber is c/n relative to the rest frame of the fiber, and
>>> that is solidly established experimentally.
> 
>> But what is the speed of light in a fiber relative
>> to the frame of reference in which the fiber is
>> moving at velocity v in the same direction as the light ?
> 
> Did you look at the formula derived from Fizeau's work? The answer is the
> same, except you'll have to replace the index of refraction of water with
> the index of refraction of the fibre (n) in the formula.

Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
of the fiber ?
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480448

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 22/12/2018 17:04, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>>> But what is the speed of light in a fiber relative
>>> to the frame of reference in which the fiber is
>>> moving at velocity v in the same direction as the light ?
>> 
>> Did you look at the formula derived from Fizeau's work? The answer is the
>> same, except you'll have to replace the index of refraction of water with
>> the index of refraction of the fibre (n) in the formula.

>Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
>get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
>of the fiber ?

Fresnel's formula, from way back in 1818, and confirmed by Fizeau in 1851:

(for v<<c) c' ~= c/n + v(1 - 1/n^2)

This has been explained to you many, many times.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480470

On 23/12/2018 02:28, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 22/12/2018 17:04, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>>> But what is the speed of light in a fiber relative
>>>> to the frame of reference in which the fiber is
>>>> moving at velocity v in the same direction as the light ?
>>>
>>> Did you look at the formula derived from Fizeau's work? The answer is the
>>> same, except you'll have to replace the index of refraction of water with
>>> the index of refraction of the fibre (n) in the formula.
> 
>> Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
>> get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
>> of the fiber ?
> 
> Fresnel's formula, from way back in 1818, and confirmed by Fizeau in 1851:
> 
> (for v<<c) c' ~= c/n + v(1 - 1/n^2)


That does not really answer my question Michael.

If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),
then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
fiber.  After which i would say, ah! but the path length clearly
increases by v*(t2 = t1), because the far end of the fiber is
obviously retreating from the light at v, and therefore the path
length increases v*(T2-t1).

Therefore speed of light in moving fiber  =  c/n + v

> This has been explained to you many, many times.

Yes indeed. Same old Fresnel/Fizeau Bull Shit eh!

keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480473

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 23/12/2018 02:28, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
> > > get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
> > > of the fiber ?
> > 
> > Fresnel's formula, from way back in 1818, and confirmed by Fizeau in 1851:
> > 
> > (for v<<c) c' ~= c/n + v(1 - 1/n^2)
> 
> 
> That does not really answer my question Michael.

Actually, it does.  YOU can figure it out for yourself once you specify
how long the fiber is, what it's velocity is and what it's index of
refraction is.  DUH!

> If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),


I've yet to meet a relativity denier who is honest.

> then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
> the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
> fiber.

Nope.  That's very dishonest of you.

>  After which i would say, ah! but the path length clearly
> increases by v*(t2 = t1), because the far end of the fiber is
> obviously retreating from the light at v, and therefore the path
> length increases v*(T2-t1).
> 
> Therefore speed of light in moving fiber  =  c/n + v
> 
> > This has been explained to you many, many times.
> 
> Yes indeed. Same old Fresnel/Fizeau Bull Shit eh!
> 
> keith stein

And a Fizeau denier, too, even though the Fizeau experiment has been
repeated MANY times with large water channels and solid media as well
which hove NO velocity variation across the media.  YOU are a reality
denier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480474

On 24/12/2018 00:57, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 23/12/2018 02:28, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
>>>> get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
>>>> of the fiber ?
>>>
>>> Fresnel's formula, from way back in 1818, and confirmed by Fizeau in 1851:
>>>
>>> (for v<<c) c' ~= c/n + v(1 - 1/n^2)
>>
>>
>> That does not really answer my question Michael.
> 
> Actually, it does.  YOU can figure it out for yourself once you specify
> how long the fiber is, what it's velocity is and what it's index of
> refraction is.  DUH!
> 
>> If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),
> 
> 
> I've yet to meet a relativity denier who is honest.
> 
>> then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
>> the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
>> fiber.
> 
> Nope.  That's very dishonest of you.

Put a fiber on a ship Gary. Measure how long it takes light
to get from one end to the other. Will it vary at all with
the speed of the ship?

>>   After which i would say, ah! but the path length clearly
>> increases by v*(t2 = t1), because the far end of the fiber is
>> obviously retreating from the light at v, and therefore the path
>> length increases v*(T2-t1).
>>
>> Therefore speed of light in moving fiber  =  c/n + v
>>
>>> This has been explained to you many, many times.
>>
>> Yes indeed. Same old Fresnel/Fizeau Bull Shit eh!
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> And a Fizeau denier, too, even though the Fizeau experiment has been
> repeated MANY times with large water channels and solid media as well
> which hove NO velocity variation across the media.  YOU are a reality
> denier.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480476

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 6:14:27 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 24/12/2018 00:57, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > That does not really answer my question Michael.
> > 
> > Actually, it does.  YOU can figure it out for yourself once you specify
> > how long the fiber is, what it's velocity is and what it's index of
> > refraction is.  DUH!
> > 
> > > If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),
> > 
> > 
> > I've yet to meet a relativity denier who is honest.
> > 
> > > then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
> > > the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
> > > fiber.
> > 
> > Nope.  That's very dishonest of you.
> 
> Put a fiber on a ship Gary. Measure how long it takes light
> to get from one end to the other. Will it vary at all with
> the speed of the ship?

You "forgot" to indicate where the observer is.  If the observer is on
the ship, no.

> > >   After which i would say, ah! but the path length clearly
> > > increases by v*(t2 = t1), because the far end of the fiber is
> > > obviously retreating from the light at v, and therefore the path
> > > length increases v*(T2-t1).
> > >
> > > Therefore speed of light in moving fiber  =  c/n + v
> > >
> > > > This has been explained to you many, many times.
> > >
> > > Yes indeed. Same old Fresnel/Fizeau Bull Shit eh!
> > >
> > > keith stein
> > 
> > And a Fizeau denier, too, even though the Fizeau experiment has been
> > repeated MANY times with large water channels and solid media as well
> > which hove NO velocity variation across the media.  YOU are a reality
> > denier.
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480481

On Monday, 24 December 2018 02:47:33 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel  wrote:

> You "forgot" to indicate where the observer is.  If the observer is on
> the ship, no.

Your tales of observers have never matched real
observers, poor idiot. Observation is a complicated
process involving a human brain, and more... far
too complicated for your gurus, you know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480500

On 24/12/2018 01:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 6:14:27 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 24/12/2018 00:57, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 3:19:58 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:

>>>> If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),
>>>> then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
>>>> the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
>>>> fiber.

>>> Nope.  That's very dishonest of you.

>> Put a fiber on a ship Gary. Measure how long it takes light
>> to get from one end to the other. Will it vary at all with
>> the speed of the ship?

> You "forgot" to indicate where the observer is.  If the observer is on
> the ship, no.

The clocks which measure how long it takes light to
travel from one end of the fiber to the other end of
the fiber are obviously at either end of the fiber,

 >> Measure how long it takes light
 >> to get from one end to the other. Will it vary at all with
 >> the speed of the ship, Gary?

>>>>    After which i would say, ah! but the path length clearly
>>>> increases by v*(t2 = t1), because the far end of the fiber is
>>>> obviously retreating from the light at v, and therefore the path
>>>> length increases v*(T2-t1).
>>>>
>>>> Therefore speed of light in moving fiber  =  c/n + v
>>>>
>>>>> This has been explained to you many, many times.
>>>>
>>>> Yes indeed. Same old Fresnel/Fizeau Bull Shit eh!
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>
>>> And a Fizeau denier, too, even though the Fizeau experiment has been
>>> repeated MANY times with large water channels and solid media as well
>>> which hove NO velocity variation across the media.  YOU are a reality
>>> denier.
>>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480502

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 12:10:40 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 24/12/2018 01:47, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 6:14:27 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > Put a fiber on a ship Gary. Measure how long it takes light
> > > to get from one end to the other. Will it vary at all with
> > > the speed of the ship?
> 
> > You "forgot" to indicate where the observer is.  If the observer is on
> > the ship, no.
> 
> The clocks which measure how long it takes light to
> travel from one end of the fiber to the other end of
> the fiber are obviously at either end of the fiber,

Therefore, they are moving WITH the fiber.  IOW, the ship's motion is
totally irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480503

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 11:10:40 AM UTC-8, Keith Stein wrote:
> > You "forgot" to indicate where the observer is. 
> The clocks which measure how long it takes light to
> travel from one end of the fiber to the other end of
> the fiber are obviously at either end of the fiber,

That doesn't answer the question.  The clock measuring the emission event is at one end of the fiber at the time of the emission, and the clock measuring the reception event is at the other end of the fiber at the time of the reception, but this does not imply that the clocks are at rest with the fiber.  

This has all been explained to you many times before, and many experiments have been cited with confirm the explanation, and falsify your beliefs.  You run from the explanations.  For example, in the Ives&Stilwell experiment your prediction is 2(v/c)^2, and the actual measured value is (v/c)^2, which conclusively falsifies your beliefs.  When confronted with this, you simply run away.  Likewise for Fizeau, Michelson, stellar aberration, GPS, etc., etc.

I'm curious to know your motivations.  Could you tell me when you first heard about relativity?  Was it in school?  Or from reading a book?  How old were you at the time?  When did you begin your anti-relativity campaign?  Has your campaign against relativity affected the rest of your life in any way?  Are you at all troubled by all the experimental results that contradict your beliefs?  Or by the fact that you feel compelled to run away when confronted with the irrefutable explanations of your misunderstandings?  Do you have any other contrarian beliefs, such as moon landing hoax, perpetual motion machines, etc?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480505

On Monday, 24 December 2018 21:55:02 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com  wrote:

> This has all been explained to you many times before, and many experiments have been cited with confirm the explanation, and falsify your beliefs. 

And prove that GPS is broken and malfunctionning.
Lies, as expected from a brainwshed fanatic idiot.

I'm curious to know your motivations.  Could you tell me when you first heard about relativity?  Was it in school?  Or from reading a book?  How old were you at the time?  When did you begin your relativity campaign?  Has your campaign for relativity affected the rest of your life in any way?  Are you at all troubled by all the experimental results that contradict your beliefs?  Or by the fact that you feel compelled to run away when confronted with the irrefutable explanations of your misunderstandings?  Do you have any other contrarian beliefs, such as moon landing hoax, perpetual motion machines, etc? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480477

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 23/12/2018 02:28, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>>> Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
>>> get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
>>> of the fiber ?
>> 
>> Fresnel's formula, from way back in 1818, and confirmed by Fizeau in 1851:
>> 
>> (for v<<c) c' ~= c/n + v(1 - 1/n^2)


>That does not really answer my question Michael.

Yes it does. c is the speed of light in vacuum, v is the speed of the rod
in the observer's frame and n is the index of refraction of the fiber.
Substitute the values in the equation and you have your answer.

>If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),

"Relativist" = crank term.
>then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
>the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
>fiber.

Why would I say that? It was known since Fizeau the speed of any medium
has some effect on the measured light speed.

>  After which i would say, ah! but the path length clearly
>increases by v*(t2 = t1), because the far end of the fiber is
>obviously retreating from the light at v, and therefore the path
>length increases v*(T2-t1).

And I would correct you, as you forgot length contraction.

>Therefore speed of light in moving fiber  =  c/n + v

And I would correct you, this is false observationally, starting with 
Fizeau, and observation always trumps theory.

>> This has been explained to you many, many times.

>Yes indeed. Same old Fresnel/Fizeau Bull Shit eh!

Experimental results cannot be BS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480482

On Monday, 24 December 2018 04:19:15 UTC+1, Michael Moroney  wrote:

> Experimental results cannot be BS.

Of course they can. Particularly when a brainwashed
fanatic is performing the experiment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480499

On 24/12/2018 03:19, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 23/12/2018 02:28, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>>> Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
>>>> get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
>>>> of the fiber ?

>> If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),
>> then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
>> the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
>> fiber.
> 
> Why would I say that? It was known since Fizeau the speed of any medium
> has some effect on the measured light speed.


Put a fiber on a ship. Measure how long it takes light
to get from one end to the other. Will it vary at all with
the speed of the ship,Mr.Moroney?



>>   After which i would say, ah! but the path length clearly
>> increases by v*(t2 = t1), because the far end of the fiber is
>> obviously retreating from the light at v, and therefore the path
>> length increases v*(T2-t1).
> 
> And I would correct you, as you forgot length contraction.
> 
>> Therefore speed of light in moving fiber  =  c/n + v
> 
> And I would correct you, this is false observationally, starting with
> Fizeau, and observation always trumps theory.
> 
>>> This has been explained to you many, many times.
> 
>> Yes indeed. Same old Fresnel/Fizeau Bull Shit eh!
> 
> Experimental results cannot be BS.
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480507

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 24/12/2018 03:19, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 23/12/2018 02:28, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>>>> Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
>>>>> get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
>>>>> of the fiber ?

>>> If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),
>>> then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
>>> the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
>>> fiber.
>> 
>> Why would I say that? It was known since Fizeau the speed of any medium
>> has some effect on the measured light speed.


>Put a fiber on a ship. Measure how long it takes light
>to get from one end to the other. Will it vary at all with
>the speed of the ship,Mr.Moroney?

In which reference frame? From other posts, I will assume in the reference
frame of the fiber on the ship. According to Einstein's PoR #1, if the
ship is moving inertially, the answer is no, it does not depend on the 
speed of the ship, its speed will be c/n.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480509

On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 02:17:52 UTC+1, Michael Moroney  wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On 24/12/2018 03:19, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >>> On 23/12/2018 02:28, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >>>>> Thank you Michael, BUT how does the time it takes light to
> >>>>> get from one end of the fiber to the other vary with the speed
> >>>>> of the fiber ?
> 
> >>> If you were honest, (and i've yet to meet a relativist who is),
> >>> then you would say the time taken for light to get from one end of
> >>> the fiber to the other does not vary at all with the speed of the
> >>> fiber.
> >> 
> >> Why would I say that? It was known since Fizeau the speed of any medium
> >> has some effect on the measured light speed.
> 
> 
> >Put a fiber on a ship. Measure how long it takes light
> >to get from one end to the other. Will it vary at all with
> >the speed of the ship,Mr.Moroney?
> 
> In which reference frame? From other posts, I will assume in the reference
> frame of the fiber on the ship. According to Einstein's PoR #1,

Assuming to The Holiest Postulate, Euclid and half
of the basic school mathematics are wrong!!!
We must follow our beloved Great Guru and reject
Euclid's prejudices.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480511

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 11:57:28 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> Assuming [the principle of relativity], Euclid and half
> of the basic school mathematics are wrong!!!

Space in special relativity is perfectly Euclidean, and there is no conflict at all with "basic school mathematics".

> We must follow our beloved Great Guru ...

Since you've declared that "Galileo was insane too", and he was the originator of the principle of relativity, could you be more specific when you talk about "Great Gurus"?  Are you referring to Galileo?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480512

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 10:07:44 AM UTC-8, yeuro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 11:57:28 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > Assuming [the principle of relativity], Euclid and half
> > of the basic school mathematics are wrong!!!
> 
> Space in special relativity is perfectly Euclidean, and there is no conflict at all with "basic school mathematics".
> 
> > We must follow our beloved Great Guru ...
> 
> Since you've declared that "Galileo was insane too", and he was the originator of the principle of relativity, could you be more specific when you talk about "Great Gurus"?  Are you referring to Galileo?

You realize that you are talking to the village idiot? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480518

On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 19:07:44 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com  wrote:
> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 11:57:28 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > Assuming [the principle of relativity], Euclid and half
> > of the basic school mathematics are wrong!!!
> 
> Space in special relativity is perfectly Euclidean, and there is no conflict at all with "basic school mathematics".

And in GE it's non euclidean and denying basic school
mathematics. You knew abaut it, didn't you?

> 
> > We must follow our beloved Great Guru ...
> 
> Since you've declared that "Galileo was insane too", and he was the originator of the principle of relativity, could you be more specific when you talk about "Great Gurus"?  Are you referring to Galileo?

No. I meant that idiot that rejected basic school
mathematics because it didn't want to fit his
postulates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480546

maluwozniak@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 December 2018 19:07:44 UTC+1, yeuro...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 11:57:28 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>>> Assuming [the principle of relativity], Euclid and half
>>> of the basic school mathematics are wrong!!!
>> Space in special relativity is perfectly Euclidean, and there is no conflict at all with "basic school mathematics".
> 
> And in GE it's non euclidean and denying basic school
> mathematics. You knew abaut it, didn't you?

You are living on a planet whose planar geometry is non-Euclidean already.

Which kind of school, if any, have you attended to claim such a ridiculous
nonsense?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web