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.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

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.

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).

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 (in this medium) at the speed c/n (always and to all direction at c/n)" (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 : With vacuum, the emission theory copes.

The notion of extinction seems to be about light speed (in the medium), as i expected. In a forum (in English), i was instructed a web-site below (See a heading "Optical Extinction"). i am grateful to Mr.cincirob.

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

If "Extinction" is actual, how about the Orbis or the speed gun !? Is wind influential somewhat !?

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 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).

Postscript (to 26 Oct)

Einstein's passage (the same as above Pauli's) is in his book : [Uber die spezielle und allgemine relativitatstheorie] 1916,1956 (in 1-13 : in this chapter on Fizeau experiment).

In short, he says that in the medium, the medium (very thing) is the reference frame of propagation of light. i repeat, it's the most reasonable explanation for the result of M-M experiment. Therefore, he doesn't want to refer to M-M experiment (probably). He pretends ignorance on it (probably).

Einstein says, I didn't know M-M experiment. He says (probably), you have misunderstanding of M-M experiment and I am not concerned with it.

i found a word "dispersion" in a book. It's written that light speed in the medium changes in accordance with frequency. It must be influential clearly in the Fizeau experiment. But no book seems to refer to it. Incomprehensible.

Sorry, i made mistake on yesterday's post. In a book (Theory of relativity : by Lajas Janossy), it's written that the result (revised by "dispersion") is published by P Zeeman.

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 ?)

Allow me to rewrite above thought experiment (dated on 13 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) ?

P.S : to yesterday's post

It's able to juxtapose two pillars (medium differs).

This is a thought experiment on Fizeau experiment. There is a pillar made of glass (laid horizontally). In this pillar, two laser lights (are propagated to the right and the left) are crossing like letter X. The state of interference fringes may be the same to all (including the one who moves relative to the pillar).