Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX

The Dutch physicist Lorentz asserted that all bodies in motion are
subject to the Lorentz transforms. As a consequence, their length
contracts in proportion to their speed, their time is slowed down
reciprocally to the length decrease and their mass increases until at
the speed of c, length and time equals zero, mass is infinite and no
greater velocity than c is possible. The transforms were invented to
account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX)
which compared the times taken by a ray of light in the direction of
the motion of the earth and perpendicularly to it over an equal
distance. The relativity pioneer Poincare wrote in his 1897 paper
'The Relativity of Space' Quote: Lorentz could have accounted for
the facts (of the null result of MMX) by supposing that the velocity of
light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the
perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the
same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former
than in the latter. End of quote. However, Lorentz had a third choice
to account for the null result. He could have assumed that instead of a
contraction of the parallel arm of the MMX interferometer equipment, an
expansion of the perpendicular arm had taken place. This would also
have explained the null result with equal justification but the three
relativistic effects would have been reversed - i.e. proportionally
to the speed, the perpendicular arm and time would have expanded and
the mass would have been reduced. Needless to say that both contraction
and expansion conjectures are untenable. The solution to the null
result of MMX is quite different.

Peter Riedt

Ps If you like fairytales, download one for free from
www.freewebs.com/djingattila

Peri of Pera wrote:
Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX

The Dutch physicist Lorentz asserted that all bodies in motion are
subject to the Lorentz transforms. As a consequence, their length
contracts in proportion to their speed, their time is slowed down
reciprocally to the length decrease and their mass increases until at
the speed of c, length and time equals zero, mass is infinite and no
greater velocity than c is possible. The transforms were invented to
account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX)
which compared the times taken by a ray of light in the direction of
the motion of the earth and perpendicularly to it over an equal
distance. The relativity pioneer Poincare wrote in his 1897 paper
'The Relativity of Space' Quote: Lorentz could have accounted for
the facts (of the null result of MMX) by supposing that the velocity of
light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the
perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the
same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former
than in the latter. End of quote. However, Lorentz had a third choice
to account for the null result. He could have assumed that instead of a
contraction of the parallel arm of the MMX interferometer equipment, an
expansion of the perpendicular arm had taken place. This would also
have explained the null result with equal justification but the three
relativistic effects would have been reversed - i.e. proportionally
to the speed, the perpendicular arm and time would have expanded and
the mass would have been reduced. Needless to say that both contraction
and expansion conjectures are untenable. The solution to the null
result of MMX is quite different.

Peter Riedt

Ps If you like fairytales, download one for free from
www.freewebs.com/djingattila


All of the above is nonsense, easily refuted by the fact that the
Kennedy-Thorndike experiment cannot be explained by either length
contraction (nor by the kooky length dilation mentioned in your text).
Try again

wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
Lorentz chose one of three incorrect solutions for MMX

The Dutch physicist Lorentz asserted that all bodies in motion are
subject to the Lorentz transforms. As a consequence, their length
contracts in proportion to their speed, their time is slowed down
reciprocally to the length decrease and their mass increases until at
the speed of c, length and time equals zero, mass is infinite and no
greater velocity than c is possible. The transforms were invented to
account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX)
which compared the times taken by a ray of light in the direction of
the motion of the earth and perpendicularly to it over an equal
distance. The relativity pioneer Poincare wrote in his 1897 paper
'The Relativity of Space' Quote: Lorentz could have accounted for
the facts (of the null result of MMX) by supposing that the velocity of
light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the
perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the
same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former
than in the latter. End of quote. However, Lorentz had a third choice
to account for the null result. He could have assumed that instead of a
contraction of the parallel arm of the MMX interferometer equipment, an
expansion of the perpendicular arm had taken place. This would also
have explained the null result with equal justification but the three
relativistic effects would have been reversed - i.e. proportionally
to the speed, the perpendicular arm and time would have expanded and
the mass would have been reduced. Needless to say that both contraction
and expansion conjectures are untenable. The solution to the null
result of MMX is quite different.

Peter Riedt

Ps If you like fairytales, download one for free from
www.freewebs.com/djingattila


All of the above is nonsense, easily refuted by the fact that the
Kennedy-Thorndike experiment cannot be explained by either length
contraction (nor by the kooky length dilation mentioned in your text).
Try again

Karandash, neither KTX nor MMX can be explained by length contraction.
The point is why does SR insist on it?

Peter Riedt

Peri of Pera wrote:

All of the above is nonsense, easily refuted by the fact that the
Kennedy-Thorndike experiment cannot be explained by either length
contraction (nor by the kooky length dilation mentioned in your text).
Try again

Karandash, neither KTX nor MMX can be explained by length contraction.
The point is why does SR insist on it?

Peter Riedt

Wrong

MMX is explained by length contraction.
KTX cannot be explained by length contraction alone.
Try again.

Karandash, neither KTX nor MMX can be explained by length contraction.
The point is why does SR insist on it?

Peter Riedt

Wrong

MMX is explained by length contraction.
KTX cannot be explained by length contraction alone.

Just to set things straight... Both MMX and KTX are explained by length
contraction (alone).
It is well know that modern ether thories and SR both have the same
conclusions on all such experiments.

wrote:


Just to set things straight... Both MMX and KTX are explained by length
contraction (alone).
It is well know that modern ether thories and SR both have the same
conclusions on all such experiments.

Nope, KTX cannot be explained by length contraction alone. You need
BOTH length contraction and time dilation.Lorentz's theory started
loosing out to SR due to this stream of additional ad-hoc hypothesis.

Nope, KTX cannot be explained by length contraction alone. You need
BOTH length contraction and time dilation.

Believe what you want. Length contraction implies time contraction
hence length contraction suffices to explain/predict the null result of
KTX.

wrote:
Length contraction implies time contraction
hence length contraction suffices to explain/predict the null result of
KTX.

Another crank to add to the list. Another "Immortal Fumble".

wrote:
Nope, KTX cannot be explained by length contraction alone. You need
BOTH length contraction and time dilation.

Believe what you want. Length contraction implies time contraction
hence length contraction suffices to explain/predict the null result of
KTX.

Try learning:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...ke&btnG=Search

Length contraction implies time contraction
hence length contraction suffices to explain/predict the null result of
KTX.

Another crank to add to the list. Another "Immortal Fumble".

Dont worry.. If it is an 'Immortal fumble', he will add it...

Try learning:

Not all what you learn is true. Try to reason/do the math yourself. I
did the math for the MMX,KTX, Ives-Stilwell etc.. when I was in my
teens, not even knowing that these experiments existed! Many years
later, I was made aware of the existence of such experiments and was
happy to know that my calculations/predictions were satisfied and
agreed identically with SR's prediction. All this based only on length
contraction.

---
If you want to be sure, then always doubt.
}:-)
---