Einstein's Fizeau Experiment a Phony (says Folzoni)

Moderators, please remove the folzoni garbage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Note: Large portions of the OP appear to be cut-and-pasted from 2014-02-17

Einstein is writing a pop-physics book for people ignorant of calculus and physics. That does not mean you may use your personal ignorance of calculus and physics as a platform to criticize from.

Incorrect. The actual intent as stated by Einstein was to determine "which of these two theorems is the better in accord with experience."
Which better describes our experience within the precision of observation:

(equation A) W(v,w) = v + w ; as Newton's model of absolute space and time would lead one to conclude. Thus it is a theorem which follows from Newton's axioms, or
(equation B) W(v,w) = (v + w) / ( 1 + v w / c² ) ; as Einstein's model of absolute space-time interval would lead one to conclude. Thus it is a theorem which follows from Einstein's axioms.​

We can't know if Einstein's axioms are right if he beats Newton on this one test, only that Newton's axioms are not as good. But Einstein never started with "nothing can travel faster than light" as an axiom, so the OP is very confused ans should be arrested upon first attempt to teach physics.

Succinct and coherent. Although the poster neglects that both (A) and (B) are unchanged upon interchange of arguments. W(a,b) = W(b,a) for both equations, so it doesn't matter which velocity is v and which is w.

Incorrect, in that the OP copied down the wrong sign in the denominator.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html ​

No doubt he is confused by the footnote which reads:

That's a calculus argument since when x is of smaller magnitude than 1,

1/(1 + x ) = 1 − x + x² − x³ + x⁴ − x⁵ + x⁶ − x⁷ + x⁸ ...​

so when x is much smaller than 1, 1/(1 + x ) is well-approximated by (1 − x). 1/1.01 = 0.99009900... which is well-approximated by 0.99, etc.

So when v/c is much smaller than 1 but 1/n = w/c is only a little smaller than 1, then W(w,v) = (v + w) / ( 1 + v w / c² ) ≈ (v + w) × ( 1 − v w / c² ) = w + v − v² w / c² − v w² / c² ≈ w + v − 0 − v / n² = w + v ( 1 − 1 / n² )

Another way to see this is that the difference between (A) and (F) is (1) = (A) − (F) = vw² / c² = v/n²
while the difference between (B) and (F) is (2) = (B) − (F) = −(v² w (c − w) (c + w))/(c² (c² + v w)) = −(v/n²) × (n² − 1) × v/(c n + v)

Therefore Einstein's (B) is closer to (F) than (A) by a factor of | (2)/(1) | = (n² − 1) × v/(c n + v) = (n² − 1) × β/(n + β)
which since 1 < n < 2 and 0 < β < 1 then it follows that (B) is closer than (A).

For n ≈ 4/3 and β ≈ 10⁻⁷, (n² − 1) × β/(n + β) ≈ 1/22857144 so (B) is almost 23 million times better than (A), according to Fizeau

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure I have! I am generally able to sort the wheat from the chaff, and am certainly able to sort the sheep from the goats.

The only goats evident in this thread are those that through "delusions of grandeur", "tall poppy syndrome" and just plain old stupidity, fail to recognise Einstein's genuis and the many giants that have contributed to the scientific field in general.

Those same goats quite predictably will deride the scientific methodology and peer review, as both those were formulated to weed out said goats from the sheep.

What you need to realise is that what you say, or what you think, is neither here nor there, and yours and mine peers will be the judges of who is showing who up, and who sees the need to insidiously post nonsensical crap in science threads to try and create the illusion of respectibility for themselves.
Hope that helps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One BIG problem I have with the Fizeau experiment is that any time a beam of light passes through a slit (even a slit in a rotating wheel) there is diffraction. Another is that it was part of an aether drag experiment, which has been in the trash can of absolute time and space physics theories since 1905 or so.

Fizeau took no account of diffraction in his apparatus in 1851. Lasers had not been invented yet, and even if they had been available, this was a dumb idea for an experiment. Why would anyone even be interested in promoting such an experiment to the detriment of Einstein? To this, there may be an answer.

To use it to say that Einstein was disingenuous about the way he berated the experiment smacks of someone who is an editor for the neo-nazi Wikipedia clone Metapedia. You won't see any swastikas on their home page, but there should be. The Fizeau experiment is just bad physics. I can't make it any plainer than that.

David de Hilster is no longer privileged to edit Wikipedia articles about physics, and for the same reason. You'll find his name and the details of his Autodynamics obsession listed prominently in the pages of the Encyclopedia of American Loons. Autodynamics claims, among other things, that neutrinos do not exist, and that most of the results of relativity can be conveniently derived using only ONE observer. But its associated math and physics fall far short of that claim. Even if it were possible, it's always easy to get the right answer by working math backwards when you already know what the answer is, isn't it? There are ethical as well as technical problems with that approach, no surprise.

Are you a neo-nazi sock puppet, FOLZONI? Why is your username in all caps? We're not hard of hearing (well, at least, I am not). On another thread, you seemed interested more in philosophy than physics. This does not belong in "Physics and Math" unless you are going for laughs. There are better places here for you to discuss this idea. The cesspool is only one. Moderator: take note. This is not an ad hominiem attack; only a humble suggestion. Some of my previous threads are also to be found there. You'll love it.

If you are a neo-nazi, you should know that some of us weren't born yesterday. A 'perfect' world in which everyone looks the same, thinks the same, acts the same and has all the resources of the world to further that agenda is a vision of an inbred dominated world most of us would not wish to live in, even if that vision did not include our own genocide. That's what 'neo-nazi' means to me. Do we need to fight WWII again, so that everyone gets the idea? Readers interested in this world view or who wish to know more about FOLZONI's take on the Fizeau experiment are referred to the pages of Metapedia, which covers most subjects related to Einstein in a manner someone like FOLZONI would no doubt approve.