Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?

Dono wrote:
I showed you quite clearly why CURRENT versions of LET cannot include
"object contraction" since "object contraction" has been already
falsified by the listed experiments. Please read my post again.

Re-reading does not change it. LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. The experiments you listed refute a theory which has JUST "object contraction", but do not refute either SR or LET.

At base, you are confused about what LET means. Around here, and in the literature, it has always meant the theory Lorentz introduced in his 1904 paper:

H.A.Lorentz, "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving
with any Velocity less than that of Light", Proc. Acad. Sci.
Amsterdam, 6, 1940. Reprinted in Dover's book:
Einstein et al, _The_Principle_of_Relativity_.

He amplified it in his monograph _Theory_of_Electrons_ (1916), in which he also acknowledged that Einstein's approach was superior.


Tom Roberts
.

Loading