DanMP

Test t_1=\frac{1+(n-1)(1-v/c)}{c/d+(v/d)(n-1)(1-v/c)} [math]t_1=\frac{1+(n-1)(1-v/c)}{c/d+(v/d)(n-1)(1-v/c)}[/math] [math]t_1=\frac{1+(n-1)(1-v/c)}{c/d+(v/d)(n-1)(1-v/c)}[/math] What I'm doing wrong? Please help. Ok, I get it, it worked but the preview didn't. Why?

I was tired when I wrote that ... and now, rethinking it, I realized that the outer flow, all around the rim, would push the paper off. The paper would hold better only if you make few holes in the tube walls, so that the outflow would be directed through that holes and not/less around the rim. Anyway, the best suggestion is the one with the strip of paper and the tweezers, but, on the other hand, you seem to lost interest in proving your contraption and keen to write what

Another suggestion: make few small holes in the middle of the sheet of paper you used in this arrangement and try again, with the holes positioned at the center of the tube. In this way the air flow should be reestablished and the paper should hold much better than without the holes. This would be a conclusive proof that the air flow created by the vortex is pushing the paper towards the tube and not the gravity "generated" by your contraption. LE: maybe you didn't understand what I meant with the vortex and the air flow, so I repeat: the wheel inside the tube, rotating fast, makes the air in the tube to rotate (the vortex) and then the centrifugal force pushes the air towards the wall, creating low pressure in the middle (along the rotation axis) and high pressure near the wall. That's why the air is sucked in in the middle and flows out along the walls (the air flow).

Ok, the camera sucks, but how about your eyes? Did you try with smoke? What did you see? It entered through the middle as I said? Maybe you can use, instead of smoke, a small strip of paper. Hold it using tweezers, put it near the center and see if it is sucked in. Then put it near the edge and see if it is pushed outwards. No need to invest in a "vacuum" chamber. In the last video, the paper didn't stay, probably because the air flow created by the vortex was interrupted, so nothing pushed the paper towards the tube, meaning that there is no gravitational pull. Try with the strip of paper. It should be conclusive.

In fact this isn't true, sorry. The air going towards the tube would overflow. The same would happen with a sealed/blocked tube. The air would still flow towards the tube but not enter in it, just go over the edges, repelled by the air inside. This, of course, it would happen if there is a gravitational pull, but there is not, there is just a vortex inside the tube, sucking air through the middle and letting it out along the walls, as I explained earlier. The board and the smoke I suggested should solve the "puzzle".

The contraption was clamped. The same was the paper, hanging few inches in front of the tube. Yes, the paper moved (otherwise why do you think I wrote what I wrote?) and the movements were clearly related to the (speed of) rotation (you could hear the noise).

or the paper would gradually return to vertical position, as the air is reaching an equilibrium point ... Did you read my smoke proposition? What do you think of it? I don't understand what you mean by that. Please explain.

Not in the second video, posted here. My recommendation was made for that arrangement, as you can see here.

I don't think so. You can easily check this with your current configuration (without the tube blocked/sealed) if you put something that creates smoke (a cigar maybe) instead of that paper. The smoke would enter the tube in the center, along the rotation axis, where the air has a low presure, and exit near the walls, were the air/smoke is pushed by the centrifugal force (the rotation creates a vortex). Still, I recommend the wooden board I mentioned above, in order to block both air and electrostatic forces (if any). Gravity is not blocked by wood.

Just put a wooden board between the black tube and the paper. Air flow and electrostatic pull should be stopped or diminished while the gravitational pull should remain the same. Do that and then come back. Otherwise it is just wasting of our time.

Please elaborate about what I underlined. Maybe you have a link ...

I like your way of thinking (although an object that emits light does not require an external excitation to be seen ...), but I'm not sure that your assertion is really different from the Copenhagen interpretation. The "photon (or whatever)" may originate from the equipment/setup we use in order to observe ...

No, according to Wikipedia: The instances when the plane is passing the tower are, in this scenario, the "two" events and the differences in the elapsed time can be seen/calculated from the pictures taken (by the way, nobody answered the OP question: the pictures would agree or not?). Even if time dilation is what you are saying, I'm more interested in analyzing the real differences in clocks rates, not what the observers are seeing "moment to moment", because their perception is altered by the finite speed of light, so it isn't relevant. This is the preferred frame I wrote about ... We do have preferred frames in the real world ... (The frame is not really inertial. The Earth rotates around the Sun, and the Sun around the galactic centre and so on ...) From this preferred frame we can see (like here, "the case of a flexible loop of optical fiber moving like a conveyor belt with some arbitrary shape") the problem as one-dimensional ... and calculate the time differences using Lorentz transformations. That's why I wrote: Yes. That's why I posted this scenario in The twin paradox and other variants. topic. Another interesting idea is that the rate of an accelerated clock doesn't depend on its acceleration Good answer! Thank you.

Exactly. This is a simplification of HK experiment. Since the influence of gravitational time dilation is eliminated, we have only speed related time dilation. And HK exp. suggests that the pictures taken by the twins would agree about time dilation. In fact, any observer, including one from Hubble, would see/capture the same difference. So, this is an interesting case where speed related time dilation is not reciprocal. Of course, if they observe each other short after the plane leave the tower, they would see that the other clock is ticking slower. With this trick is possible to instantly compare the clocks and to see that in fact speed related time dilation is not really reciprocal, only appears to be, because the speed of light is limited. Another interesting aspect is that we can not apply Lorentz transformations with one twin as stationary and the other moving in relation with the first. We can only do that if we consider a preferred frame, the one with the origin in Earth's centre. Of course, the twins are not in inertial frames, but this was/is not an issue for Fizeau experiment, where Lorentz transformations are successfully applied ... So, it seems that in the real world, where we have massive objects and rotation, we do have preferred frames, contrary to the idea that we don't ... Back to the tower / orbiting plane scenario, let the tower be on the equator and the plane flying along the equator. If the plane is flying eastwards (same direction as the rotation of the tower in Earth's centre frame), the clock on the plane would tick slower and remain behind the other. If the plane goes westwards, the tower clock would get behind, until the plane will have double the speed of the tower around the Earth, in relation with the tower, when the clocks would be in sync. For greater westward speeds, the plane clock would fall behind again.

Another take on twin paradox: One twin is living in a tower on Earth and the other is flying around the Earth with constant, high, speed, at the same level with the "tower twin". Both are using very accurate clocks with 2 displays, one normal and one very big. Now, the plane with the flying twin gets very close to the tower every time it completes a full circle around the Earth and both twins are taking pictures with both plane & tower cocks in the same frame/picture (remember the normal + big displays). The question is: would the pictures taken show time dilation only for the other twin/clock or the pictures would agree in showing time dilation only for the twin/clock on the plane (or tower)? Why? PS Pictures are dropped at the tower base to be easily compared.

Ok, thank you.

Post 201 ?!? Ok, I get it, you don't know the answer and want to drive me away from the simple question I posted (see #196). No problem, maybe someone else will answer. I'll wait for the answer and not engage in a meaningless dispute.

What do you mean?!? It didn't. As I wrote above (3 times, or more), I need to know what result should be the target for my (or any) alternative (non-Lorentzian) theory for Fizeau experiment.

It seems that you forgot our conversation on the matter Here: This is accurate when v/c « 1, and agrees with the formula based upon Fizeau's measurements, which satisfied the condition v/c « 1 It agrees but is not identical. Relax, the new theory is not intended to replace SR, which is good/sound, but to offer (& test) a new, specific, model/solution. SRT is too general, it not explains what is going on there. So, back to my question, what is the target for a new/alternative theory, what Fizeau found or exactly the SR result (the one with 1+v/cn below)?

Nothing much I just need to see that you can agree with something I wrote. How about this:

A - In Newton's theory, gravity is a force, while general theory of relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy, so they are not really "in agreement; compatible" ... B - In Fizeau experiment the result derived from the existing theory (SR) is not identical with what Fizeau found, so a new theory must be consistent with what Fizeau found, the reality, not identical with SR result (the one with 1+v/cn below). Do you agree?! So, to say "A new theory must be consistent with existing theory" is not OK.

Consider 2 clocks, one stationary and the other moving away. Just before parting, they display the same hour: 00:00. After departure, the clock moving away will show 00:01, then 00:02 and so on, slower than the stationary one, but still going towards future. So it's not "travelling into the past", it's just going towards future at different pace. In fact it's "travelling into the future", for the parting clock/person, because if they get back, they will find people at home passed away or older (twin paradox). Sorry if this was posted before. I didn't read all the posts.

What gravitons? Are gravitons accepted by mainstream science?! I agree

Yes, you are right. Another way is to predict, using the new model, something that existing theories can't/didn't predict, and then test it.

Easier, but possibly wrong. SR offers for Fizeau experiment a good prediction, but a new theory prediction must be compared with the experimental result, NOT with SR prediction.