Re: What is LET?


dej4 wrote:

The first thing in it is "Michelson's Interference Experiment by H. A.
Lorentz". In it he explains how the contraction of the arms of the
device could produce the observed results. He goes on to explain how
small the contractions would be. This is a qoute direct from Lorentz.

"The length of a meter rod would change, when moved from one principal
position into the other, by about 1/200 micron. One could hardly hope
for success in trying to perceive such small quantities except by means
of an interference method. We should have to operate with two
perpendicular rods, and with two mutually interfering pencils of light,
allowing the one to travel to and fro along the first rod, and the
other along the second rod. But in this way we should have come back
once more to the Michelson experiment, and revolving the apparatus we
should perceive no displacement of the fringes. Reversing a previous
remark, we might now say that the displacement produced by the
alterations of length is compensated by the Maxwell displacement"

So you can see Lorentz did write about meter sticks and trying to
measure his contraction.

The idea that, "This type of contraction has noothing to do with the
perceived measuriement of objects" is a hoot. BTW, I wont make a big
thing about "noothing" ;)

Precisely. This is what makes the Trouton experiment so diabolical, it
gets around the issue "measuring devices wiill contract in the same
extent as the measured items, so we won't beable to detect the
contraction". Trouton fiigured out a way of getting around this issue.
He did it twice (the first time with the TRouton-Noble experiment in
1903, the second time he did it even better).


Yeah, he calculates values for another frame, as opposed to measuring
them, and then plugs those calculations into a formula in a way that
was never intended. Pretty diabolical all right.

I notice you snipped the part where you accused me of using the wrong
contraction. Must be you finally figured out that I was right.


When you shorten a wire in the lab by cutting it, you reduce the number
of atoms a current would have to pass through, reducing its resistance.
The LF contraction does not change the number of atoms, so there is no
reason to expect it to have the same effect as cutting the wire.

No comment on this? Why do you think the resistance in the wire should
change?

Because its length and its cross-section WOULD have changed IF Lorentz
was right about his AD-HOC hypothesis.

The formulas were developed based on measurements made in the lab.
What makes you think you can just plug in calculations for some other
frame? One of the most common problems in this group is when new guys
try to disprove SR by claiming that they can add v from the moving
frame to c in the rest frame, showing that the speed of light is c+v in
the moving frame. Trouton did the same type of thing, but you think it
is fine because it gave a result you like.


The experiment did not refuted the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction.
Well, you are at odds with the physics dept at UCL. They wrote exactly
the opposite. And I tend to agree with them.
Good to see you can reason things out for yourself ;)
It
showed that the contraction could not be detected with that device.
Bruce
The last one is really precious, taken straight out of the "denier's"
textbook. Why do you think that Chase and Tomashek repeated the
experiment, independently? Can you answer?
Could be they figured out that the change should be "zero", not just
less than expected. How many times has the MMX been repeated?

This is a nonsense answer. The paper shows clearly that they expected a
significant change and they got much less than predicted (exactly as in
TN and MM). And the
experiment has been repeated at least twice, with better equipment and
with tighter error bars (ecxactly as in.....).

You asked a question and I answered in a way that made it obvious I was
speculating. I certainly wasn't going to waste my time looking up the
paper and reading it. They repeated a flawed experiment and got
basically the same result.


Well , you should. "They" did not repeat any experiment.
The TR experiment is not flawed, the hypothesis behind it is what is
flawed. TTR got the right result, Lorent's contraction does not exist.


Also , have you found the "frame jumping" in the paper I suggested? If
yes, where?
Using calculated changes in the aether frame in place of actual
measurements in the lab is "frame jumping".

Nope, you are thinking relativity contraction, not FitzGerald. Remedial
course, read again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_and_length_contraction#Ref...

Like I said, you've gotten yourself all screwed up reading wiki.



This is a BS answer. If you didn't read the paper (by your own
admission) how could you state that there is frame-jumping?

You described the experiment. Did you describe it incorrectly?

I notice you are making more errors and getting abusive to other
posters. Have you been taking your meds?

Maybe Paul is right. I mistakenly thought you could learn to think
things out.

Bruce

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
    ... object is its length in its own rest frame). ... but does that mean that Lorentz contraction is somehow not ... ie their proper length changes) when objects move ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Evidence for Lorentz Contraction?
    ... In any other frame the Galilean addition of velocities>>> applies. ... >> c relative to an ether frame was NOT refuted by the MMX. ... > transformations in his discussion of Fresnel's ether, nor does Lorentz ... > by Heaviside in the same paper that he calculated the contraction of the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
    ... object is its length in its own rest frame). ... but does that mean that Lorentz contraction is somehow not ... ie their proper length changes) when objects move ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
    ... object is its length in its own rest frame). ... but does that mean that Lorentz contraction is somehow not ... then the proper length doesn't change. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
    ... that LET is based on LF contraction. ... Lorentz was fully aware of Trouton's experiments. ... isotropically as c in every frame of reference. ... to you that light speed anisotropy will produce a Lorentz violation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast