Bart

Sorry DH, I am not criticize the subject only I want to explain my doubts. I think we do not understand each other, because your answer do not explain my question. I have learned SR, may be as deep as you but I am not so happy follower of that theory as you might expect. Can you be so kind to answer my simple question putted in the post #25 to IM?

Thank you IM for your reply. But if the speed is unchaged because the source of the light, the glass rod, and the device which measures the speed of that light are all on the Earth at rest with respect to each other -- i.e. in a single frame of reference, then it will be the same if all that stuff will be placed in a rocket and launch to space with the speed eg. 0,5 c. Am I right?

Since no one dared to answer this question, we can only assume that the matter lies elsewhere. Because, regardless of whether for the case presented, the response will confirm or deny the unchanging speed of light in the glass rod, BOTH ANSWERS WILL DENY THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SR THEORY.

Evrything is in a physics laboratory. The light source, the test apparatus, and the detector are all at rest with respect to each other (and the Earth.) The glass rod you can have as long as you need to answer the question.

Sorry DH once more, I can not describe my question more detailed. Is is really so dificult to grasp the problem, I am asking? Whether measurements of the speed of light in a glass rod (flint 170 000 km / s), will show the difference of speed, if the first measurement of the speed will be executed when the rod is in a position parallel to the speed of the Earth, and the second measurement, when the rod is in a position transverse to the motion of the Earth . Does the speed of light in a glass rod (or other medium) depends on the motion of the Earth?

I have a kind question, why my yesterday's post disappeared from this forum without any response ? Post concerned the credibility of SR theory and the question in the following issues: Whether measurements of the speed of light in a glass rod (flint 170 000 km / s), will show the difference of speed, if the first measurement of the speed will be executed when the rod is in a position parallel to the speed of the Earth, and the second measurement, when the rod is in a position transverse to the motion of the Earth . Does the speed of light in a glass rod (or other medium) depends on the motion of the Earth?

Sorry DH, I repeat: If this were true, we could measure e.g. the speed of rotation of the Earth, by measuring differences in velocity of light in a glass rod (flint 170 000 km / s) in the parallel direction to the Earth's movement and in the transverse direction to this movement. I hope it is clear enough, now.

In the Fizeau experiment, the medium was in motion relative to the light source. Your explanation is not true for the medium without movement relative to the light source, so your arguments are wrong. If this were true, it could measure the speed of the Earth by measuring the differences in velocity of light in the glass in a direction parallel to the motion of the Earth and in the transverse direction.

Could you explain what is this nonsense? Do you think that the speed of light in glass or stationary water is not the same in all directions and is dependent on the motion of the Earth? When and how it was found?

On thelink: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/InterpreatationMichelsonExperiment.pdf is presented the analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which shows that this experiment could be misinterpreted. Thus, whether the SR theory was based on false premises? Has anyone checked this already?

Measurements made ​​in a laboratory on Earth have shown that the speed of light measured in the air is constant in every direction and does not depend on the speed of the Earth (speed of the measuring interferometer). So will be right the conclusion that measured, in the same laboratory, the speed of light in the motionless water or glass, will also be constant in any direction and independent of the speed of movement of the Earth? Best whishes of happinesses and successes to All in the new year has already begun!

Thanks for your comments. I am now totally confused in these Earth explanations. As apassenger, I now travel a rocket at a constant speed 0.98 c in relation to the Earth and I do not feel for this reason, any changes in my surroundings here. Just as on the Earth, I still have 180cm height and 80kg mass, my soccer ball is still round, and my dumbbells have weight 5kg. The only difference is that I see you on the Earth in a more red color due to your fast moving away from me (Doppler effect) and I hear your radio broadcasts more and more delayed, which is also understandable because of the increasing distance. But I hear, that you there on the Earth, you say that my mechanical watch is five times slower than on Earth, and that I have now only 30 cm tall, that I have a mass of 400kg, that my soccer ball has now become a rugby ball, and my dumbbells have a mass of 25 kg and which I still brandishes as fast as on Earth. Is it in your view, that my strength also increased 5 times? Neither you on the Earth nor I in the rocket are able to determine who of us is at rest and who is moving at speed of 0.98 c. We move away from each other with the speed 0,98c and that's all. Neither your seeing me and not my seeing you, has no effect on the actual physical state of whoever of us. The relativistic effects are just an illusion, caused by the limited speed of transmission of the information (light speed). If we ever find a data transmission method much faster than light , then the present illusion at the speed of light will disappear, and the current supposed evidence of mass increase, time dilation,etc. prove to be only a measurement or interpretive errors. I believe that sooner or later it will happen.

Then if the relative speed is 0.9999 c, the length and thus the volume would be contracted 70 times, and the relativistic mass increases 70 times, giving 5000 times the density. 1. What will happen then with the Mendeleev's Periodic Table of Elements? 2. What will be the speed of light, eg in air or water, when its density increases 5,000 times? 3. What will happen with the air pressure in the cabin of the rocket and what happens to the rocket itself, when the density of the rocket and air contained therein will grow 5,000 times ?

1. "Any number of experiments can not prove that I'm right: one experiment may show that I am wrong ". A. Einstein 2. A rocket is propeled by its own jet engine and not by an external system like protons in accelerators, so the above comparison is wrong. 3. What then is the formula for the increase of relativistic mass density? Does the density of mass can grow in a different proportion than the contraction?

What energy is measured in accelerators? Is it the energy of the particle mass, or the energy that is generated by the charge of this particle in motion? Since they are two different things. When measuring the energy generated by the charge, the cumulation of its may occur, distorting the measurement, similar to the cumulation of acoustic energy when approaching a sound barrier.

Interesting explanations with the surprising conclusions regarding the interpretation of the SR theory, are shown in the link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/TransparencySRtheory.pdf Has anyone already seen it? What can be think about the explanations presented there? Can they be true?

Janus, thank you very much again for your clarification. You are a very patient guy, and you made hard work, thanks. Math is correct now, but the reality seems to be a little simpler. Thank you all for your posts. Bart

Thank you Janus for clarifying. But even with the adoption of the calculated speed of light for the glass clock as 219749 kps, it still does not agree with the lengthwise clock.

Iam very sorry, but I still do not understand this question. Please, explain how time dilation will be seen by an observer on the clocks in the following description, taken from Wikipedia, and assuming that there are two light clocks side by side, a vacuum clock and the other glass clock. Simpleinference of time dilation due to relative velocity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation Observer at restsees time 2L/c. Observer movingparallel relative to setup, sees longer path, time > 2L/c, same speedc. Time dilation can be inferredfrom the observed fact of the constancy of the speed of light in all referenceframes.[2][3][4][5] This constancy of the speed oflight means, counter to intuition, that speeds of material objects and lightare not additive. It is not possible to make the speed of light appear fasterby approaching at speed towards the material source that is emitting light. It isnot possible to make the speed of light appear slower by receding from thesource at speed. From one point of view, it is the implications of thisunexpected constancy that take away from constancies expected elsewhere. Consider a simple clock consistingof two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing. The separationof the mirrors is L and the clock ticks once each time it hits a givenmirror. In the frame where the clock isat rest (diagram at right), the light pulse traces out a path of length 2Land the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light: Fromthe frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v(diagram at lower right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angledpath. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of lightis constant in all frames, which implies a lengthening of the period of thisclock from the moving observer's perspective. That is to say, in a frame movingrelative to the clock, the clock appears to be running more slowly.Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-knownprediction of special relativity: Thetotal time for the light pulse to trace its path is given by Thelength of the half path can be calculated as a function of known quantities as SubstitutingD from this equation into the previous and solving for Δt' gives: andthus, with the definition of Δt: whichexpresses the fact that for the moving observer the period of the clock islonger than in the frame of the clock itself.

The question is: what difference of time these clocks will show per day (24h), according to the theory of relativity? In my understanding the clocks will always indicate the same time, regardless of their distance and period of time measurement, day, year, 10 years ... But what about the theory of relativity?

Clocked remotely means that the clocks are driven by pulses from 1 GHz radio transmitter, and not their own oscillators.

Thanks for your response. But this question is strange, because I forgot to add that the two clocks are timed remotely from a radio transmitter 1 Ghz, installed on the slope.

Suppose that at the top of Mt. Everest precision clock has been installed, and the same second clock was installed at the bottom of the mountain, 8 km below the summit. Before installing, clocks were carefully synchronized. The question is: what difference of time these clocks will show per day (24h), according to the theory of relativity?

1. In the calculation using the glass clock has to be applied to the speed of light in glass (Cs), and not in a vacuum and in my understanding the formula used by the author is correct 2. I do not understand your objections, may I know on what formulas is obtained the same time of the clocks? My calculations show that for the trip there (T1) and back (T2), total time measured by the clock based on the Doppler effect by the formula: T1 + T2 = 1 / (for * ((1-v / c) / (1 + v / c)) ^ 0.5) + 1 / (for * ((1 + v / c) / (1-v / c)) ^ 0.5), will always be greater than for the vacuum clock based on the relativistic formula: T1 + T2 = 2 * (2D1 / c) / (1 - (v / c) ^ 2) ^ 0.5, and it is for any speed of the rocket. 3. It is true that the author simplifies the calculations for the pendulum, but it has little effect on that the clock is fast, but it does not affect the correctness of conclusion. 4. "Whether or not such an test has actually been done on the ISS is moot, since the sameexperiment is essentially done every day with GPS satellites. The clocks onthese satellite have to be adjusted to compensate for time dilation in orderfor the system to remain accurate." Correction of time of GPS clocks, is that the clocks are fast and not late, and this may be the result of the following two circumstances: - To take account the orbital speed of Earth. See calculations by Professor Joe Nahhas http://www.scribd.co...-is-an-illusion - The need for constant adjustment of time of the satellite clocks due to the slow degradation (shortening) of satellite's orbits. Thus, the GPS does not need to be a reliable evidence of time dilation.

Thanks Janus for your reply. The 60 km I got from the link given at IM Edgall's post, as below: "Fro example, see link: http://www.physlink....perts/ae611.cfm "