Re: The true crackpots


PD wrote:
> PD wrote:
> Sorry, I made a little typo, which I correct below.
>
> >
> > Now for the parallel arm, in the frame where the interferometer is
> > moving, let's suppose for a moment that the arms are not contracted.
> > Then in this frame, the time it takes for the light to chase down the
> > moving arm is L/(c-v), and on the return path, the time it takes for
> > light to reach the other end is L/(c+v). Now add those up...
>
> This is the "closing speed" that Dirk refers to.
> By the way (anticipating a comment), it's a common mistake to say that
> if the time to traverse a rod is L/c in a frame where the rod is
> stationary, then it must be L'/c in a frame where the rod is moving.
> The justificaion usually given by the erroneous student is "but the
> speed of light is c in every frame!".
>
> That's right, says the teacher, it is, and that's precisely WHY the
> "chase-down" time is L'/(c-v).
> Look at it this way. If I have a rod moving at speed v in my frame of
> reference, if it only took time L'/c for light get from one end of the
> rod to the other, then the speed of light in my frame would have to be
> (c+v), because it would need at least v just to keep up with the
> starting point of the rod, and would have to be c greater than that to
> make it to the other end by L'/c later. But the speed of light in my
> frame is NOT (c+v), it's c, by the first postulate of SR. Therefore,
> the time it takes to get from one end of the rod to the other is
> L'/(c-v), during the leg where the light is chasing down the rod.
>
> PD

Thank you.

If you still don't realize that the Michelson & Morley experiment
falsifies special relativity, you have a problem with elementary
logic.

Indeed,

1) the Lorentz transformation predicts time dilation of a clock
at rest in the primed system AND length contraction of a ruler
at rest in the primed system (cf. Vdm).

2) The null result of the MMX is *wholly* explained, EITHER
by length contraction of the "parallel" arm (which btw was
the ad hoc pre-SR hypothesis) OR by time dilation
of a clock situated on that arm. This contradicts the prediction
of the LT, according to which the arm is contracted AND time
is dilated for an observer situated in the unprimed frame.
IOW, the null result falsifies the LT and, consequently, SR.

Marcel Luttgens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: There is no physical length contraction
    ... points) are not simultaneous in the observers frame. ... accelerating rod as measured in the frame where the rod started out at ... that the contraction was an artifact of how we measure things. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: There is no physical length contraction
    ... points) are not simultaneous in the observers frame. ... accelerating rod as measured in the frame where the rod started out at ... that the contraction was an artifact of how we measure things. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: There is no physical length contraction
    ... >> points) are not simultaneous in the observers frame. ... > accelerating rod as measured in the frame where the rod started out at ... > that the contraction was an artifact of how we measure things. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The true crackpots
    ... >> I gave you evidence that length contraction is a proven phenomenon. ... Let's call S the "ether" frame, and S' the interferometer frame. ... The arm of the interferometer, which is parallel to the x,x'-axis ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... >> from one inertial frame S to another S' you get a different result ... > According to aether theories rod contraction is a real process depending ... > on the speed of the rod with respect to the aether frame. ... > Conversely, for relativity theory, there is no aether frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)