[Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time

[O. Serret]

Dear Randy,

Thank you for your answer confirming 1.27 cm diameter. 

The consequence, as you say, is to change the Reynold number. The flow is still turbulent, you are right, but a little less turbulent. 

You chose for the ratio Umax./Uav. to take the value of 1.16. It is the value taken by Fizeau. But Fizeau took a 2.8 cm diameter (maybe is it the origin of the confusion of diameter in your paper ?). The fact is that with a little less turbulent flow, the  Umax will be a little different, a little higher. And if we take again your Fig. 10 (of http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/pdfs/errata.pdf), the Special Relativity slope will be a little higher, apparently closer to your experimental data ... 

In my opinion, the trouble with this Fizeau's experiment is the uncertainty of the measure, in particular of the effective water velocity which is not measured but calculated or even estimated. Another Fizeau's experiment done in Toulouse, France, had to correct of 9% the slope to match the data ! Wich such an uncertainty on water velocity, we can conclude only that Newton theory does not work with light ; but it is difficult to clearly conclude than Relativity works or not, or Doppler theory, or Neo-Newtonian theory based on a Variable Inertial Mass (if you are interested, you can check paragraph 4.3 about Fizeau Experimental Results on http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=56126&#abstract) or any other theory close to this experimental data. It would be necessary to take another media than water to get more acurate results in order to discriminate these theories ...

With my best regards
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pi?ce jointe HTML a ?t? nettoy?e...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161110/687326fa/attachment.html>