Re: Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX


John Kennaugh wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:

Harald, Maxwell was the first to find that the speed of light is
isotropic. Your quote from Lorentz is his attempt to give a reason for
contraction. He saw it as a kind of flattening of electrons and
ponderable bodies against the ether wind. But if there is no ether
wind, why should electrons shrink, moving against nothing? My point is
that there is no obvious or demonstrated reason that contraction occurs
whether the ether exists or not. The question still is why contraction
should be preferred over expansion. If you know, tell me.

I know that you are discussing Lorentz but LET and SR are mathematically
identical so one can assume that if it has to be contraction in SR in
order to make it work then it must be contraction in LET to make it
work.

If you take the twin paradox and assume that the stay at home twin sees
the other twin travelling at such a speed that his clock is going at
half the rate of his own, then it will tick half as many times as his
own before it reaches the distant star.

To the twin on the space ship, his clock is ticking normally but the
distance to the distant star is contracted to half the distance the stay
at home twin measures so it takes him half the time to reach it.

A tick is an event. It either happens or it doesn't so both twins must
observe the same number of ticks. It is simply that their description of
what happens is different.

The answer to your question is that it has to be contraction in order to
make the maths work. There are no choices in the maths. All degrees of
freedom are exhausted in order to get it to work.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

John, you are half right half wrong. To make the math work, contraction
or expansion is necessary. But the premises underlying the math are
incorrect.

Peter Riedt

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX
    ... >>>that there is no obvious or demonstrated reason that contraction occurs ... >> If you take the twin paradox and assume that the stay at home twin sees ... >> distance to the distant star is contracted to half the distance the stay ... >> John Kennaugh ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX
    ... John Kennaugh wrote: ... that there is no obvious or demonstrated reason that contraction occurs ... If you take the twin paradox and assume that the stay at home twin sees ... distance to the distant star is contracted to half the distance the stay ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX
    ... |>>>that there is no obvious or demonstrated reason that contraction occurs ... |>> If you take the twin paradox and assume that the stay at home twin sees ... |>> distance to the distant star is contracted to half the distance the stay ... |>> John Kennaugh ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX
    ... John Kennaugh wrote: ... that there is no obvious or demonstrated reason that contraction occurs ... If you take the twin paradox and assume that the stay at home twin sees ... distance to the distant star is contracted to half the distance the stay ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX
    ... |>>that there is no obvious or demonstrated reason that contraction occurs ... |> If you take the twin paradox and assume that the stay at home twin sees ... |> make the maths work. ... |> John Kennaugh ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading