Fizau experiment (on the light speed in moving media : 1851) may be a misunderstanding of the result (Einstein's explanation also). A column made of glass is set horizontally. Two lights (emitted from two light sources) are passing through this glass (from left to right). One light source is approaching toward the glass at high (and uniform) speed. Another is at low (and uniform) speed. The frequency of two incident lights is just the same (thus arranged). Obviously, the frequency of two lights that go out the glass must be the same (if not so, the number of waves that exist in the glass may increase or decrease endlessly). Therefore light speed of two lights in the glass is the same.
After writing above, my conviction disappeared. Outline and view (about sameness of the light speed in the glass) may be right. However, proof may not stand up. Very sorry.
To dear administrator, : If you think above writing is invalid, i ask to erase that and this please. Sorry to worry you.
Allow me to write once more about Fizeau experiment (on the light speed in moving medium : 1851) please.Common explanation on this experiment may be wrong (Einstein's explanation also). A column made of glass is set horizontally. Two lights (emitted from two light sources) are passing through this glass (from left to right). One light source is at a stand-still (distance between the glass is fixed). Another light source is approaching toward the glass at an uniform speed. The frequency of two incident lights is just the same (thus arranged). Under this situation, the frequency of two lights that go out the glass is the same obviously (if not so, the number of waves that exist in the glass may increase or decrease endlessly). Therefore light speed of two lights in the glass is the same ("Drag" isn't partial).
Allow me to write once more about Fizeau experiment (on the light speed in moving medium : 1851) please.Common explanation on this experiment may be wrong (Einstein's explanation also). A column made of glass is set horizontally. Two lights (emitted from two light sources) are passing through this glass (from left to right). One light source is at a stand-still (distance between the glass is fixed). Another light source is approaching toward the glass at an uniform speed. The frequency of two incident lights is just the same (thus arranged). Under this situation, the frequency of two lights that go out the glass is the same obviously (if not so, the number of waves that exist in the glass may increase or decrease endlessly). Therefore light speed of two lights in the glass is the same ("Drag" isn't partial).
Allow me to write once more about Fizeau experiment (on the light speed in moving medium : 1851) please.Common explanation on this experiment may be wrong (Einstein's explanation also). A column made of glass is set horizontally. Two lights (emitted from two light sources) are passing through this glass (from left to right). One light source is at a stand-still (distance between the glass is fixed). Another light source is approaching toward the glass at an uniform speed. The frequency of two incident lights is just the same (thus arranged). Under this situation, the frequency of two lights that go out the glass is the same obviously (if not so, the number of waves that exist in the glass may increase or decrease endlessly). Therefore light speed of two lights in the glass is the same ("Drag" isn't partial).
Allow me to write once more about Fizeau experiment (on the light speed in moving medium : 1851) please.Common explanation on this experiment may be wrong (Einstein's explanation also). A column made of glass is set horizontally. Two lights (emitted from two light sources) are passing through this glass (from left to right). One light source is at a stand-still (distance between the glass is fixed). Another light source is approaching toward the glass at an uniform speed. The frequency of two incident lights is just the same (thus arranged). Under this situation, the frequency of two lights that go out the glass is the same obviously (if not so, the number of waves that exist in the glass may increase or decrease endlessly). Therefore light speed of two lights in the glass is the same ("Drag" isn't partial).
Allow me to rewrite again, please. Rewritten is the latter half.It's a variation of the Fizeau experiment (on the light speed in moving medium : 1851). A pillar made of glass is set horizontally. Two lights (emitted from two light sources) are passing through this glass (supposed to be from left to right). One light source is at a stand-still (distance between the glass is fixed). Another light source is approaching toward the glass at an uniform speed. The frequency of two incident lights is just the same (thus arranged). Under this situation, the frequency of two lights that go out the glass is the same obviously (if not so, the number of waves that exist in the glass may increase or decrease endlessly). From above, what is able to say ? If the speed of two incident lights is the same, light speed in the glass (also in the water and so on) may be the same (because wave number is the same). Therefore, if speed of two lights in the glass is not the same (in above thought experiment), the emission theory seems to be right. To dear administrator, : The other day, i made mistakes. i ask, please erase mistakes and this.
i found a word "extinction" in a book "Special Relativity" By French, A.P. 1971. It's written that from the incident light, the glass 0.005cm thick is enough to extinguish the memory of light source's motion. What ?? Is the light speed equalized in the medium ? If so, what about above thought experiment (on pillar made of glass) ? What about Fizeau experiment (Imagine an observer and the glass that move together) ??It's written also that the air 0.1mm thick is enough to "extinction". Is the result of Michelson-Morley experiment explained (and only this explanation alone is reasonable ??) ? If so, bad dream (But, in encyclopedias of physics, the word "extinction" seems to mean other matter).
It's a question on Fresnel-Fizeau light drag effect. Long pillar (section is square) made of glass is set horizontally. To the upper face of the pillar, light waves of a star are entering horizontally. These light waves reach bottom face horizontally also (it must be so geometrically). The pillar is supposed to move from the right to the reft because of the motion of the earth. Whether light rays go straight or are bent (from view of the frame of star) ? If light rays go straight, light rays may not be at right angle to the light waves (at frame of glass). And speed of both in the medium may differ. It's unreasonable (according to the "extinction" view, the speed of light waves is constant). Therefore light rays may be bent (at frame of star). And light rays must be at right angle to the light waves (at frame of glass), then, light drag may not be partial. In a book "Teoria della relativita" By W.Pauli 1970, it's written as follows. An experiment (to measure Fresnel drag coefficient) was done with the light ray that is emitted at right angle to the direction of the motion of medium. About the result, it's not written clearly.
It's a question on Fresnel-Fizeau light drag effect. Long pillar (section is square) made of glass is set horizontally. To the upper face of the pillar, light waves of a star are entering horizontally. These light waves reach bottom face horizontally also (it must be so geometrically). The pillar is supposed to move from the right to the reft because of the motion of the earth. Whether light rays go straight or are bent (from view of the frame of star) ? If light rays go straight, light rays may not be at right angle to the light waves (at frame of glass). And speed of both in the medium may differ. It's unreasonable (according to the "extinction" view, the speed of light waves is constant). Therefore light rays may be bent (at frame of star). And light rays must be at right angle to the light waves (at frame of glass), then, light drag may not be partial. In a book "Teoria della relativita" By W.Pauli 1970, it's written as follows. An experiment (to measure Fresnel drag coefficient) was done with the light ray that is emitted at right angle to the direction of the motion of medium. About the result, it's not written clearly.
It's a question on Fresnel-Fizeau light drag effect. Long pillar (section is square) made of glass is set horizontally. To the upper face of the pillar, light waves of a star are entering horizontally. These light waves reach bottom face horizontally also (it must be so geometrically). The pillar is supposed to move from the right to the reft because of the motion of the earth. Whether light rays go straight or are bent (from view of the frame of star) ? If light rays go straight, light rays may not be at right angle to the light waves (at frame of glass). And speed of both in the medium may differ. It's unreasonable (according to the "extinction" view, the speed of light waves is constant). Therefore light rays may be bent (at frame of star). And light rays must be at right angle to the light waves (at frame of glass), then, light drag may not be partial. In a book "Teoria della relativita" By W.Pauli 1970, it's written as follows. An experiment (to measure Fresnel drag coefficient) was done with the light ray that is emitted at right angle to the direction of the motion of medium. About the result, it's not written clearly.
In a book "Teoria della relativita" By W.Pauli 1970, it's written as follows. "From view point of an observer who moves with moving medium, light must be considered that it's propagated (always and to every direction) at the speed c/n in the medium" (translated from Japanese edition). In the air, it may be the same. Why it's not an explanation for M-M experiment ? For what reason ? Note : In a book "Special Relativity" By French, A.P. 1971, it's written that the air 0.1mm thick is enough to extinguish the memory of light source's motion. Light speed may be equalized in the medium (The memory of frequency or wave-length may not be extinguished by the medium ("extinction"). Are there anything except for light speed ? ).
The speed in the rest frame of the medium is always the same (for a given frequency). It does not depend on the speed of the source (even though the frequency does due to the Doppler effect). The point that Fizeau was making with his experiment is to show that the speed with regard to the *observer* depends on whether the latter is moving with regard to the medium.The constancy of light only strictly holds in a vacuum, and it is a logical consequence of the fact that light can travel without a carrier medium as it carries itself (to be more precise, according to Maxwell's Equations, the electric wave carries the magnetic wave and vice versa; it is somewhat ironic that Maxwell himself did obviously not realize this as he believed in the ether theory and a positive outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment). On the other hand, experiments like the Sagnac effect, which apparently contradict the invariance of c and suggest the presence of an absolute reference frame, could well be explained by the presence of the earth's magnetic fieldSee also my page Speed of Light and Theory of Relativity for more. Thomas
to Mr.Thomas Smid, As you write, in the medium, light propagates at the speed of c/n. In the air, it may be the same. But i ask, why it's not an explanation for M-M experiment ? For what reason ? (as to vacuum, the emission theory supports)
> to Mr.Thomas Smid, > As you write, in the medium, light propagates at the speed of c/n. In the air, it may be the same. But i ask, why it's not an explanation for M-M experiment ? For what reason ? (as to vacuum, the emission theory supports)c/n is the light speed in the rest frame of the medium. In the rest frame of an observer moving with velocity v relatively to the medium, the velocity is c'=c/n+v*(1-1/n2) (see http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau/fizeau.stm ). For the Michelson-Morley experiment both the light source and detector were at rest relatively to the medium (the air) i.e. v=0, so this explains the zero result. Of course, people at the time were thinking of a different medium, the ether, but this was just a hypothetical assumption (without any physical basis) because it was thought that any wave needs a carrier medium, and since light can also travel in a vacuum, it was assumed that such a medium must exist. But they obviously overlooked that according to Maxwell's equation light can travel without a carrier medium as it carries itself (to be more precise, the electric wave carries the magnetic wave and vice versa). So again, from this point of view the M-M experiment must result in a negative outcome as well .Thomas
To Mr.Thomas Smid,If the air moves relative to the instrument of M-M experiment at the speed of 30km/sec, expected result may be gotten (but it's based not on c but on c/n). But the fact is that the air is at a stand-still. Therefore, zero result is only natural. In a forum : anti relativity com, above view is not denied (for the present).
In a library, i found English edition of Pauli's book : "Theory of Relativity". Quoted passage above is as follows (It's in 1-6). Rather should one say that for an observer moving with the medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all directions.i repeat, why it's not an explanation for M-M experiment ?
There is a pillar made of glass (laid horizontally). Light ray (emitted from a light source that is fixed at the left end of the pillar) is passing through this glass (from the left to the right). In front of an observer (at a standstill), one pillar is moving to the right and another pillar is moving to the left at the same speed. To an observer, whether speed of light in the glass is different or not ? (How about, if another light source is fixed at the right end ?)
There is Einstein's passage the same as above Pauli's. Therefore (probably) he say he didn't know M-M experiment. He may have no choice (but to say so).
Allow me to rewrite above thought experiment (dated on 14 Oct) please.There is a pillar made of glass (laid horizontally). A light ray (emitted from a light source that is fixed at the upper face of the glass) is propagated through the glass like letter V (reflected by a mirror : 30 degrees : from the left to the right). In front of an observer (at a stand-still), one pillar is moving to the right, another pillar is moving to the left at the same speed. To an observer, whether speed of light in the glass is different or not ? [Postscript] Galileo transformation seems to stand up. [Postscript] If another light ray is propagated from the right to the left (on the same path) ?