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


"Dono" <sa_ge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1183824772.376166.322850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 7, 9:11 am, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

It is true that Lorentz contraction on its own has been disproved
by experiment.

Great, you are starting to understand my point.

"Is LET based on
a. the 1904 Lorentz - FitzGerald contraction (falsified by the listed
experiments)

It seem you are just confused about terminology. Lorentz' 1904
paper described contraction and time dilation. The term 'LET'
is generally used here to mean that complete theory (length
contraction and time dilation) that is exactly equivalent to SR.

A theory which has only length contraction with no time effects
has been falsified but this theory has never been called LET
by anyone but yourself. I believe that FitzGerald was the first
to propose length contraction as an explanation for the null result
of the MMX but, as you know, this effect alone is not sufficient
to explain all experimental results. Perhaps we should call
length contraction only FET.

or

b. is it based on the projective contraction dating after the 1905
Einstein paper (the one that is UNFALSIFIABLE by ANY experiment)?"

You seem to be making up your own terminology and
expecting everyone else to understand it. If have never
seen the term 'projective contraction' used before but I
presume you are referring to the concept of the projection
of a 4-dimensional object onto 3-dimensional space.

This concept did not form any part of Einstein's 1905
paper but was introduced later by Minkowski.

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

Of course, LEt COPIED everything there is to copy drom SR. Look at
Selleri's papers.

No thanks.

You seem to have a idiosyncratic view of the term 'LET'.
The term 'LET' has no currency in peer reviewed scientific
literature. It is used on this group to describe Lorentz'
complete theory as published in 1904.

Which one do you say? a or b?

Both are wrong.


--
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)