There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.
So, I want to turn back the Fizeau experiment. This is one which
relativists claimed that be the classic evidence for SR's velocity
addition.
Could it be that SR's velocity addition can also be disclaim by the
Fizeau experiment in oneself?
Ok, let us consider two form modification of Fizeau and
Michelson-Morly experiments as follow:
1. According to the Fizeau experiment which were carried out in 1851,
calling:
- "n" is the refractive index of medium.
- "u" is the speed of medium in comparison with the rest laboratory on
earth.
- "c/n" is the speed of light in the rest medium.
- "c+" is the speed of light in the same direction of the motional
medium.
- "c-" is the speed of light in the contrary direction of the
motional medium.
According to Special Relativity's interpretation: The medium represent
the K frame, the laboratery (or the earth) represent the K' frame. "u"
is the relative speed of K and K' frame, "c/n" is the
speed of light in the K frame (medium), "c+" and "c_" are the speed of
light in K' frame (laboratory or earth). By the formula for velocity
addition of Relativity, since uc, after some modifications, The
light speed in the motion medium is determined by the formulas:
c+ = (c/n)+(1-1/n^2)u, c_ = (c/n)-(1-1/n^2)u
and this is agree with the experimental result.
Now! I suppose that the above experiment be carried out in a
travelling spacecraft at vo velocity
in the universal space, the vectors vo of spacecraft and u of medium
are same the direction.
Some questions a
What can represent the K, K' frames if we interpret the above result
by the SR's velocity addition?
Are the achievement values of result varied with the change of vo
velocity of the spacecraft?
If the result of experiment defind a value of c+ or c_ in the K'
frame, then, what is K' frame while the spacecraft being travelling in
huge universal which no fulcrum?

2.Similarly, supposing that: the Michelson-Morly be carried out in
condition having the water or glass medium in which a part of light
wave is propagating. Since, the velocity of earth is the velocity of
medium. To base on the experimental evidence of the Fizeau, a result
which disclaim MMX's "null result" must be found. Then, how about our
interpretation in that case?

Sincere.
ThanhMinh.

wrote in message om...
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.

There is no experimental evidence for Galilean velocity 'addition'.
No one has ever been able to show experimentally that a velocity
of 1 m/s combined with a velocity of 1 m/s gives exactly 2 m/s
as opposed to 1.99999999999999998 m/s.

Dirk Vdm

wrote:
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.

This is apparently because you've chosen to ignore all of the
experimental evidence that has been posted. For example
Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271

and every HEP experiment done in the last 40 years.

So, I want to turn back the Fizeau experiment. This is one which
relativists claimed that be the classic evidence for SR's velocity
addition.

"Classic" but hardly the best. Perhaps you'd like to refute
Copernicus starting with Ptolemy's data.

Could it be that SR's velocity addition can also be disclaim by the
Fizeau experiment in oneself?

No, but I assume you're going to claim it can.

-E

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

wrote in message
om...
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.

There is no experimental evidence for Galilean velocity 'addition'.
No one has ever been able to show experimentally that a velocity
of 1 m/s combined with a velocity of 1 m/s gives exactly 2 m/s
as opposed to 1.99999999999999998 m/s.

How can you know anything about velocity when you can't even give a
definition of either time or a clock? You don't know what a clock is, but
you can measure velocity? With what?
--
Time in S' as compared to S:
[T= T'*g]
Time on a linear clock in S' as compared to it's twin in S as both observed
from S:
[T = g*(T'+vL'/c^2)]

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

wrote in message
om...
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.

There is no experimental evidence for Galilean velocity 'addition'.
No one has ever been able to show experimentally that a velocity
of 1 m/s combined with a velocity of 1 m/s gives exactly 2 m/s
as opposed to 1.99999999999999998 m/s.

How can you know anything about velocity when you can't even give a
definition of either time or a clock? You don't know what a clock is, but
you can measure velocity? With what?

Give the definition of a measuring rod. Give the definition of electric
charge. Give the definition of intelligence. Here is a thought, why not
look it up in a dictionary - what a novel idea. Why did no one think of
that before. Let us see what it says:

An instrument other than a watch for measuring or indicating time,
especially a mechanical or electronic device having a numbered dial and
moving hands or a digital display. A time clock. A source of regularly
occurring pulses used to measure the passage of time, as in a computer.

Bill


--
Time in S' as compared to S:
[T= T'*g]
Time on a linear clock in S' as compared to it's twin in S as both
observed
from S:
[T = g*(T'+vL'/c^2)]

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...

wrote in message
om...
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.

There is no experimental evidence for Galilean velocity 'addition'.
No one has ever been able to show experimentally that a velocity
of 1 m/s combined with a velocity of 1 m/s gives exactly 2 m/s
as opposed to 1.99999999999999998 m/s.

How can you know anything about velocity when you can't even give a
definition of either time or a clock? You don't know what a clock is,
but
you can measure velocity? With what?

Give the definition of a measuring rod. Give the definition of electric
charge. Give the definition of intelligence. Here is a thought, why not
look it up in a dictionary - what a novel idea. Why did no one think of
that before. Let us see what it says:

So you're back again? I've wasted quite a bit of time with you already.
Are you going to cut and run once again when I do the same as last time and
use your own statements against you to box you in? Apologize to me for your
vitriol, particularly calling me a bigot. Demonstrate how you came to this
conclusion or be man enough to apologise. Meanwhile, I'll simply answer
your asshole questions by summarizing how we got to this point:

I put forward a simple assertion that time is not real and therefore does
not dilate but that it's velocity which is real and which dilates. You and
your butt munch buddy then proceeded to call me every vile name in the book,
some of which have nothing at all to do with my relative competence in this
field, simply because you could not answer some simple questions. You've
both claimed that I'm the idiot, yet when asked about *time*, all you can do
is say that it's what a clock says it is. However, when I produce what
*seems to me* to be an inconsistency with this statement, you both again
resort to hate filled posts but then go on to refuse to define what a clock
is. Why? Most probably because for you now to do so will expose the fact
that you've put yourselves in a box. Your solution? More insults of the
worst kind and finally, compete refusal to even tangentially address the
issue. In your case, you simply ran and hid only to resurface now.

So in light of this and the assertions that the both of you arrogant
assholes have made, it is for you to define a clock and not to divert the
conversation into an issue of my ability to define a measuring rod. I can,
and I would, but I'm not going to allow you to suck me into such tangents.

You say that time is what a clock says it is, and your asshole buddy can
give plenty of examples of a clock, so it should be child's play for
self-proclaimed men of science with superior intellects such as you call
yourselves to define why those examples fit the description.



An instrument other than a watch for measuring or indicating time,
especially a mechanical or electronic device having a numbered dial and
moving hands or a digital display. A time clock. A source of regularly
occurring pulses used to measure the passage of time, as in a computer.

Well, that definition is grossly weak considering the others that have been
posted here, but let's go with it.

So a device which consists of a rod which is graduated with equidistant
marks along its axis and an indicator which moves along that axis of the rod
at a constant velocity would qualify right? After all, every occurrence of
the indicator passing a graduation would be an event, right? It would
produce these so-called *regularly occurring pulses* in the same way a
numbered dial with moving hands would, correct?

:
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.


No, you can't. Two obvious examples are,


(1) thomas precession

(2) the photon helicity. The photon helicity is lorentz invariant.
and is either +1 or -1. Explain how this could be a constant
if velocities added differently.

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"AllYou!" wrote in message
...

"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...

wrote in message
om...
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity
addition.

There is no experimental evidence for Galilean velocity 'addition'.
No one has ever been able to show experimentally that a velocity
of 1 m/s combined with a velocity of 1 m/s gives exactly 2 m/s
as opposed to 1.99999999999999998 m/s.

How can you know anything about velocity when you can't even give a
definition of either time or a clock? You don't know what a clock is,
but
you can measure velocity? With what?

Give the definition of a measuring rod. Give the definition of electric
charge. Give the definition of intelligence. Here is a thought, why
not
look it up in a dictionary - what a novel idea. Why did no one think of
that before. Let us see what it says:

So you're back again? I've wasted quite a bit of time with you already.
Are you going to cut and run once again when I do the same as last time
and
use your own statements against you to box you in? Apologize to me for
your
vitriol, particularly calling me a bigot. Demonstrate how you came to
this
conclusion or be man enough to apologise.

Came to what conclusion - you are a bigot? I do not think I actually
mentioned that word although I may have used words like crank or crackpot.

Meanwhile, I'll simply answer
your asshole questions by summarizing how we got to this point:

I put forward a simple assertion that time is not real and therefore does
not dilate but that it's velocity which is real and which dilates.

And I asked for experimnetal consequences that distinguish your hypotheses
(it is rubbish BTW but that is another issue) from the assumption that time
is what clocks measure and you were not able to supply any. The conclusion
then is that it is a scientifically meaningless assertion.

Rest of vitriol mercifully snipped.

Bill

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...
wrote in message om...
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.

There is no experimental evidence for Galilean velocity 'addition'.

No! The Galilean velocity addition exactly is a addition in math. The
disclaiming it will be to disclaim a the 1+1=2 addition in math!

No one has ever been able to show experimentally that a velocity
of 1 m/s combined with a velocity of 1 m/s gives exactly 2 m/s
as opposed to 1.99999999999999998 m/s.

That mean you believed that 1+1=1.999999999999999999999999999999999999
but not be 1+1=2. Aha ... lo and behold!!!


Dirk Vdm

ThanhMinh.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
:
There were many discussions in this topic. So, I could infer the
result that no any experimental evidence for SR's velocity addition.


No, you can't. Two obvious examples are,


(1) thomas precession

(2) the photon helicity. The photon helicity is lorentz invariant.
and is either +1 or -1. Explain how this could be a constant
if velocities added differently.

Still exist another form of the relativistic velocity addition that
disclaim Galilian's one! It is in form v' = v*sqrt(1-vo^2/c^2) + vo.
You can try to check with it!
ThanhMinh.