The Fizeau Effect

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.
Emil
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:37 pm

The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by Emil » Thu Sep 08, 2022 2:17 am

The experiment of Fizeau is incompatible with the theory of relativity.

https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0088v1.pdf

BuckeyeFrank
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:24 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by BuckeyeFrank » Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:04 am

Emil wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 2:17 am The experiment of Fizeau is incompatible with the theory of relativity.

https://vixra.org/pdf/2208.0088v1.pdf
Not that I have a clue, but does reference 2 say that their effort though it needs improvement sided with Albert?

References
2. Lahaye, Fizeau’s “aether-drag” experiment in the undergraduate laboratory, 2012.
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conf ... full?SSO=1
00037_psisdg9793_97931G_page_3_1.jpg
A theoretical model for the radial dependence is thus required but in the turbulent regime in which we operate no simple rigorous analytic expression for the velocity profile. A commonly used empirical law [2] gives a correction factor of 1.16 and we must add an extra 3.8% correction due to dispersion. The relativistic expected slope is then 0.299 rad s/m (not shown in Fig. 2(b)). The agreement between the experimental and theoretical values is thus at the level of 8%.
4.DISCUSSION
Based on our data, we conclude that the non-relativistic prediction is clearly ruled out by our measurements. Nevertheless, the rather good agreement with the relativistic prediction must not be over interpreted.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by crawler » Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:58 pm

As is usual science of this kind is almost always wrong -- & as usual it is only me that can point it out.
I have seen say 4 different interpretations of the fizeau effect -- & all of them end up arriving at nearnuff the same equation.
And they are all wrong.
They are all wrong koz they all invoke the dragging of aether.
No -- aether cannot be dragged -- at least not in that way.
Dragging duz happen -- but it is the dragging of light, ie photons, not aether.
Water drags light.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Emil
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:37 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by Emil » Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:55 pm

BuckeyeFrank wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:04 am Not that I have a clue, but does reference 2 say that their effort though it needs improvement sided with Albert?
Of course they say so, all relativists do it, they always “prove“ relativity, but their results prove the opposite, as can be noticed.

Emil
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:37 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by Emil » Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:17 pm

crawler wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:58 pm As is usual science of this kind is almost always wrong -- & as usual it is only me that can point it out.
I have seen say 4 different interpretations of the fizeau effect -- & all of them end up arriving at nearnuff the same equation.
And they are all wrong.
They are all wrong koz they all invoke the dragging of aether.
No -- aether cannot be dragged -- at least not in that way.
Dragging duz happen -- but it is the dragging of light, ie photons, not aether.
Water drags light.
True. It's not only you, but we are few. Moreover, the Fizeau's formula is wrong.
https://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0372v1.pdf

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by crawler » Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:13 pm

Emil wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:17 pm
crawler wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 12:58 pm As is usual science of this kind is almost always wrong -- & as usual it is only me that can point it out.
I have seen say 4 different interpretations of the fizeau effect -- & all of them end up arriving at nearnuff the same equation.
And they are all wrong.
They are all wrong koz they all invoke the dragging of aether.
No -- aether cannot be dragged -- at least not in that way.
Dragging duz happen -- but it is the dragging of light, ie photons, not aether.
Water drags light.
True. It's not only you, but we are few. Moreover, the Fizeau's formula is wrong.
https://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0372v1.pdf
I think that relativistic hypothesis have (can have) meaning. The aetherwind blowing through the lab can affect the experiment. Rods are contracted for sure. The ticking of clocks is affected. The dimensions of the experiment is affected. Often the effects cancel, ie they can be ignored. Anyhow, to be correct, Gigov's equations should include the term c" – which is the apparent speed of light.
The problem then is that all of the relativities are wrong – ie Voigt Cohn Searle FitzGerald Lorentz Poincare Einstein Minkowski – all are wrong to some degree.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Emil
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:37 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by Emil » Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:06 am

crawler wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:13 pm I think that relativistic hypothesis have (can have) meaning. The aetherwind blowing through the lab can affect the experiment. Rods are contracted for sure. The ticking of clocks is affected. The dimensions of the experiment is affected. Often the effects cancel, ie they can be ignored. Anyhow, to be correct, Gigov's equations should include the term c" – which is the apparent speed of light.
The problem then is that all of the relativities are wrong – ie Voigt Cohn Searle FitzGerald Lorentz Poincare Einstein Minkowski – all are wrong to some degree.
So you are a fan of the Lorentz transformations, but they are unproved.

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by jackokie » Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:01 pm

@emil I'm not familiar with this particular issue, so this may have already been done, but can you propose an experiment or set of experiments that will demonstrate the validity of the Lorentz Transformations?
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

Emil
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:37 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by Emil » Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:04 pm

jackokie wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:01 pm I'm not familiar with this particular issue, so this may have already been done, but can you propose an experiment or set of experiments that will demonstrate the validity of the Lorentz Transformations?
The facts are not in favor of the Lorentz transformations, so can't propose such an experiment.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by crawler » Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:32 pm

Emil wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:06 am
crawler wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:13 pm I think that relativistic hypothesis have (can have) meaning. The aetherwind blowing through the lab can affect the experiment. Rods are contracted for sure. The ticking of clocks is affected. The dimensions of the experiment is affected. Often the effects cancel, ie they can be ignored. Anyhow, to be correct, Gigov's equations should include the term c" – which is the apparent speed of light.
The problem then is that all of the relativities are wrong – ie Voigt Cohn Searle FitzGerald Lorentz Poincare Einstein Minkowski – all are wrong to some degree.
So you are a fan of the Lorentz transformations, but they are unproved.
My problem with the Lorentz transform for length contraction is that the equation has been confirmed.
Any MMX that is dunn in vacuum mode confirms it – read Prof Reg Cahill's stuff, he derived the correct calibration.
My problem is that a sensible em radiation analysis tells us that that equation must be overstating the length contraction by say 41%.
But for sure some kind of length contraction (FitzGerald) or width dilation (Lorentz) or a combination (Lorentz) must exist.
Time dilation is a farce. However, clocks must suffer a ticking dilation due to length contraction.
The main factor in all such LC & TD is of course the aetherwind.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Emil
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:37 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by Emil » Fri Sep 09, 2022 9:31 pm

crawler wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:32 pm My problem with the Lorentz transform for length contraction is that the equation has been confirmed.
Any MMX that is dunn in vacuum mode confirms it – read Prof Reg Cahill's stuff, he derived the correct calibration.
My problem is that a sensible em radiation analysis tells us that that equation must be overstating the length contraction by say 41%.
But for sure some kind of length contraction (FitzGerald) or width dilation (Lorentz) or a combination (Lorentz) must exist.
Time dilation is a farce. However, clocks must suffer a ticking dilation due to length contraction.
The main factor in all such LC & TD is of course the aetherwind.
Aetherwind doesn't mean length contraction, otherwise you cannot register it. Aether is the field into the space and it has some low viscosity, i.e. there is a partial wind.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Fizeau Effect

Unread post by crawler » Sat Sep 10, 2022 2:49 am

Emil wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 9:31 pm
crawler wrote: Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:32 pm My problem with the Lorentz transform for length contraction is that the equation has been confirmed.
Any MMX that is dunn in vacuum mode confirms it – read Prof Reg Cahill's stuff, he derived the correct calibration.
My problem is that a sensible em radiation analysis tells us that that equation must be overstating the length contraction by say 41%.
But for sure some kind of length contraction (FitzGerald) or width dilation (Lorentz) or a combination (Lorentz) must exist.
Time dilation is a farce. However, clocks must suffer a ticking dilation due to length contraction.
The main factor in all such LC & TD is of course the aetherwind.
Aetherwind doesn't mean length contraction, otherwise you cannot register it. Aether is the field into the space and it has some low viscosity, i.e. there is a partial wind.
MMXs tell us that there i LC or WD or both.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest