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

On Jul 7, 10:09 am, shuba <tim.sh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dono wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:36 am, shuba <tim.sh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dono wrote:
The "object contraction" from Lorentz 1904 paper has been falsified by
several experiments:

Naw, the object contraction is completely unobservable and cannot
possibly be falsified by any experiment that is not at odds with
special relativity.

Hmmm, how do you explain these experiments:

1. ^ Trouton F. T., Rankine A. (1908). "On the electrical
resistance of moving matter". Proc. Roy. Soc. 80 (420).
2. ^ Carl T. Chase (1927). "The Trouton-Noble Ether Drift
Experiment". Phys. Rev. 30 (516): 516-519.
3. ^ R. Tomaschek (1924). "The conduct of light of
extraterrestrial
light sources". Annalen der Physik 73: 105-126.
4. ^ R. Tomaschek (1925). "Attempt at the locating of the
electrodynamic effect of earth movements at high altitudes I".
Annalen
der Physik 78: 743-756.
5. ^ R. Tomaschek (1926). "Concerning an experiment on the
location
of electrodynamic effects of the movement of the Earth at high
altitudes II". Annalen der Physik 80: 509-514.
6. ^ R. Tomaschek (1927). "Comments on my tests on the detection
of
electrodynamic effects at high altitudes". Annalen der Physik 84:
161-
162.

Are any of them in conflict with special relativity?


No, none of them is in conflict with SR. You haven't read the papers,
have you? The principle is that refute the "Lorentz-FitzGerald
contraction" which is quite different from the Lorentz contraction
(the one derived from the Lorentz transforms ib SR). Please read the
papers and then we will talk, I am not in the mood to explain to you
how the experiments work.



If not,
they cannot be in conflict with the unobservable length
contraction of Lorentz. Essentially, propents of "physical
contraction" elevate one member of an equivalence class of
inertial frames to the "physically correct" one, without
providing any justification for the uniqueness of that frame.


Please read the papers, would you? Then we can talk.



.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast