Re: Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX

Peri of Pera wrote:

John Kennaugh wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
>
>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.

I was not arguing whether or not the theory is right.

Newton's mechanics says time is universal, that a constant distance
remains constant and a mass is a fixed property of a given lump of
matter. All of which were considered axioms of physics prior to the MMX.

The null result of the MMX was contrary to the predictions according to
Maxwell's ether theory.

Physics had a choice. Either stick with Newton's axioms and conclude
that Maxwell's EM theory needs modification - it had failed anyway -
light was discovered to be particulate. Or assume Maxwell was right in
which case Newton's axioms had to go - giving a bizarre world where
space time and mass all vary with speed.

Hell I know which I would have gone for!

Physics chose the latter. My point is that in THAT context there are no
additional degrees of freedom. It has to be contraction not expansion.
In the above if you apply expansion in the orthogonal direction it does
not contract the distance to the distant star so you could not make the
number of ticks the same for both observers. Basically you get the same
number of ticks:



John, your argument is circular. The concept of ticks relates to time
dilation which relates to contraction. I am saying that without
compelling evidence why contraction should be accepted over expansion

So you are saying that if it were expansion it would be the other way around. The stay at home twin would see his brothers clock going at twice the rate of his own and the moving twin would get the same number of ticks because he perceives that he has travelled twice the distance. That works but isn't there a snag? If you explain the MMX in terms of expansion then surely it has to be expansion orthogonal to the direction of motion so the distance to the distant star would stay the same and you cannot then get both observers counting the same number of ticks.

No I believe that there are no additional degrees of freedom in the maths. In fact there is a so called 'proof' of relativity which shows that there is only one combination which works. It is not actually a proof as it assumes that length and time do vary with speed and only proves that if they do then you end up with relativity. Unfortunately due to a HDD failure I have lost all the various references I have collected otherwise I could quote chapter and verse.

I did come across this which I wrote some time back.

Let's take the simplest approach

When you first came across relativity chances are you were introduced to 'light clocks' on trains.

A/ Stand the light clock vertical work out the path length in both the FoR of the train and the FoR of the embankment. Assume the speed of light for both equal to c (second postulate) and you can show the time relationship (time dilation equation) - assuming the height of the clock is the same for both FoR.

B/ Lie clock horizontal and by a similar technique (allowing for the same time dilation derived in A) you can derive the length relationship in the direction of travel between the two FoR.

Now if you were a bright and curious student you might ask the obvious question as to why in 'A' you assumed that the height is constant and time was the variable? Why not get the speed the same by making the clock taller for the observer on the train than for the observer on the embankment? The answer to that is that if you do you cannot get B to work. You can envisage a ruler being shorter in one orientation than the other but the idea that time is different vertically and horizontally is a nonsense.

That is why all degrees of freedom are used up and your alternative
length expansion doesn't pan out.

or expansion over contraction, neither can be the true reason for the
null result of MMX and therefore any and all theories that use the
Lorentz transforms are fallacious.

I have always found it incredible that anyone would believe that the laws of nature would conspire in such an underhand way to hide the ether from us - the basis of Lorentz's theory. As it is hard to argue that Einstein's theory is actually a different theory to Lorentz's I would have only been forced with the utmost reluctance to accept such an absurd concept after every other possibility had been eliminated by experiment. There was an alternative, namely that light is made up of particles and their speed is c relative to the source, a result of the physical process ejecting them. Far from being eliminated that possibility, put forward by Ritz, was ignored and there is not a credible experiment which casts doubt on that theory until 1964.



Peter Riedt




The earth bound observer says it is because his brothers clock is going
half the speed of his.

The moving twin perceives that the distance he travels is half that
measured by his twin.

>
>Peter Riedt
>

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


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

Relevant Pages

  • 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 ... should be preferred over expansion. ... 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
    ... 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: Difference between predictions of SR and LET - perhaps!
    ... Lorentz's theory - The function of the aether was not merely a medium ... Put simply action at a distance force is transferred via the aether. ... Lorentz's 'length contraction' was an ad-hoc assumption. ... The twin paradox of SR - Essentially the 'tick' of a clock is an event. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast