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

On Jul 6, 5:56 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

That's not the point. The point is that , if you continue with your
claim that contemporary LEt is based on "object contraction" this
renders LET false based on the experimental falsification that dates
back to 1908.

Repeating your matra "LET is indistinguishable from SR" (and even
worse "SR shares object contraction with LET" completely misses the
point.




The experiments you listed refute a theory which has JUST
"object contraction", but do not refute either SR or LET.


But, but, you just posted the fact that both SR and LET "share object
contraction". Look at what you just wrote.


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_.


Yes, I have the paper. Historical data that I provided you with (and
which you continue to ignore) shows that the "object contraction" (the
way you call it) has been falsified experimentally from 1908 on.

Tom, what happens to a theory that has one of its theoretical
foundations falsified experimentally?


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

Tom Roberts

Ok, fine, I am familiar with Lorentz aknowledgement of SR superiority.
What does this have to do with the subject we are discussing? Are you
going to read the experiments I pointed you to? The FAQ page is
conspicously silent about them, might be a good idea to update the web
page.


.

Loading