[Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time

[Randy O. Wayne]

Dear Olivier,

You are right that the actual velocity curve is the most important thing to know. I thought that if we set up an experiment and worked out as many of the details as we could, we just might excite "real physicists" to repeat Fizeau's experiment with large pipes with sufficient water flow (of solutions with different refractive indices) to determine the true FS-velocity curve and the true function that describes the results.  I was really surprised to hear that people thought we were wrong to even question relativity and were attacked for even doing the experiment. It is definitely possible to build the experiment with large pipes and then use the interference pattern at various distances from the center to determine the true velocity curve (although this is circular reasoning). I do not have the money or facilities to repeat this experiment with large pipes...but it is certainly an important experiment and one that I hope will be done. Zeeman complained that he did not have the money that the American's (Michelson and Morley) had to do the same experiment. I wish I had more money to do the experiment even better than we did.
Thanks,
Randy


Randy Wayne,
Providing a Second Opinion on Scientific Issues Since 1982
[second opinion]
http://labs.plantbio.cornell.edu/wayne/


From: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] On Behalf Of O. Serret
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 5:16 PM
To: physics at tuks.nl
Subject: Re: [Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161111/76464d23/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4433 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161111/76464d23/attachment.jpg>