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


"Dono" <sa_ge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1183817567.118380.17690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 7, 7:07 am, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Dono" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1183814550.451292.239750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 7, 3:25 am, "Martin Hogbin"
No so, LET can fully explain _every_ experiment that fall within its
realm of applicability.

I am not disputing this.
I am disputing the historical foundation of LET.

In what way?

The fundamental equations of SR are the Lorentz transformations.
They have this name because they were essentially the equations
proposed by Lorentz in 1904.

What happened is that the "latter day" generators of
aether theories replaced the "object contraction" (which they knew to
have been falsified by the experiments I cited)

No, Lorentz' original 1904 theory can explain all the experimental
results we have to date (obviously excluding gravitation).

This is NOT the point , Martin.
No one is contesting that the equations are identical. The physical
interpretation isn't.

Wrong. The philosophical interpretation is not the same but there
is only one physical (ie experimental) interpretation. In both cases
the times and distances in the equations represent measurements of
physical quantities in different frames of reference.

In other words the transformation of all measurable times and
distances is determined by the Lorentz transformations.

Or to put it even more plainly, the expected result of any (relevant)
experiment can be calculated by means of the Lorentz
transformations. This applies to all those you have listed.

It is true that Lorentz contraction on its own has been disproved
by experiment. but the complete Lorentz transformations (which
form the basis of SR and LET) are confirmed by every experiment
to date.


The so-called "object contraction" of the 1904
Lorentz paper has been falsified by multiple experiments. THIS is the
point.

See here:

The "object contraction" from Lorentz 1904 paper has been falsified by
several experiments:

It is true that Lorentz contraction on its own has been disproved
by experiment. but the Lorentz transformations (ie SR and LET)
are confirmed by every experiment to date.

<list of papers snipped>


Quite a few:

1.Ilja Schmeltzer's "GLET"
2. Selleri's "LET"

These are people that know physics, even more importantly they know
the history of physics, it would be ridiculous for them to base their
theories on an effect ("object contraction") that has been falsified
experimentally 100 years ago, don't you think?
So, they did the clever thing of "borrowing" the "length contraction"
of the modern SR. They had to, otherwise their theories would have
been non-starters if they were founded on stuff like that:

"Our (n.b. Lorentz's) assumption amounts to saying that in an
electrostatic sistem \Sigma (sic!) moving with velocity v, ALL
electrons flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axes in the
direction of motion"

(the "object contraction" as described by Lorentz in the 1904 paper,
paragraph 8)

Yes but LET is not length contraction on its own, it includes time
effects.

Sophisticated people like Ilja Schmeltzer, Selleri, etc
could not have possibly founded their theories on an approach ("object
contraction") that they KNEW it has been falsified experimentally 100
years ago.

I am not aware that Ilja claims to have founded his theory on any form
of length contraction, projective or otherwise.

Please look at his papers on arxiv

Ilja Schmeltzer was once quite active on this group and I had several
interesting discussions with him. He never mentioned that his theory was
based on 'projective length contraction'.

In any case I do not want to be drawn into a discussion on newer
aether theories.



--
Martin Hogbin



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ... Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation, ... the MMX experiment. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ... Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation, ... the MMX experiment. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ... Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation, ... the MMX experiment. ... He assumed electrons have a spheroidal form governed by the Lorentz ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MMX, Rotation and Lorentz
    ... Lorentz not only derived the contraction and time dilation, ... the MMX experiment. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: c+v and c-v or not?
    ... Use the Lorentz transforms approximating those ... bodies carried forward in the earth's motion undergo a deformation. ... But its true velocity (I mean this time, ... the amount of contraction being just sufficient to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)