Expansion = contraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: waldofj on 7 May 2010 16:43 On May 7, 2:35 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Expansion = contraction > > Lorentz contraction formula L1=L*sqrt(1-(c/v)^2) applied to the > parallel arm of MMX explained the null result of the interferometer > experiment. > > My expansion formula L1=L*sqrt(1+(c/v)^2) applied to the perpendicular > arm explains the same thing. > > Peter Riedt just a nit pick, your equation for expansion is a good approximation but the correct equation is L1=L/sqrt(1-(c/v)^2)
From: Peter Riedt on 7 May 2010 20:13 On May 7, 5:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:cfacf753-09dd-45e6-8521-b66306b7a1e5(a)32g2000prq.googlegroups.com... > > > Expansion = contraction > > > Lorentz contraction formula L1=L*sqrt(1-(c/v)^2) applied to the > > parallel arm of MMX explained the null result of the interferometer > > experiment. > > > My expansion formula L1=L*sqrt(1+(c/v)^2) applied to the perpendicular > > arm explains the same thing. > > Why is your formula better? Won't that mean the objects that are fast > moving toward or away from us would be appearing larger. So a cylinder > moving thru a tube would expand as it moved and no longer fit. Inertial, my formula is NOT better than that of Lorentz. Nobody can give any reason why one should be used over the other. And that makes both of them wrong. Peter Riedt Peter Riedt
From: Androcles on 7 May 2010 20:59 "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:fc673e8c-aef5-4ef1-9852-5b365fd535ad(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On May 7, 5:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:cfacf753-09dd-45e6-8521-b66306b7a1e5(a)32g2000prq.googlegroups.com... > > > Expansion = contraction > > > Lorentz contraction formula L1=L*sqrt(1-(c/v)^2) applied to the > > parallel arm of MMX explained the null result of the interferometer > > experiment. > > > My expansion formula L1=L*sqrt(1+(c/v)^2) applied to the perpendicular > > arm explains the same thing. > > Why is your formula better? Won't that mean the objects that are fast > moving toward or away from us would be appearing larger. So a cylinder > moving thru a tube would expand as it moved and no longer fit. Inertial, my formula is NOT better than that of Lorentz. Nobody can give any reason why one should be used over the other. And that makes both of them wrong. ================================================= Way to go, Peter. The only problem is your expansion is actually a contraction, and Einstein's "contraction" is actually an expansion. Dorks like the Inert one are too stupid to realise sqrt(1+(c/v)^2) is less than 1.
From: eric gisse on 7 May 2010 22:03 Peter Riedt wrote: > On May 7, 5:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:cfacf753-09dd-45e6-8521-b66306b7a1e5(a)32g2000prq.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Expansion = contraction >> >> > Lorentz contraction formula L1=L*sqrt(1-(c/v)^2) applied to the >> > parallel arm of MMX explained the null result of the interferometer >> > experiment. >> >> > My expansion formula L1=L*sqrt(1+(c/v)^2) applied to the perpendicular >> > arm explains the same thing. >> >> Why is your formula better? Won't that mean the objects that are fast >> moving toward or away from us would be appearing larger. So a cylinder >> moving thru a tube would expand as it moved and no longer fit. > > Inertial, > > my formula is NOT better than that of Lorentz. Nobody can give > any reason why one should be used over the other. And that makes both > of them wrong. Which one of these more accurately reflects the state of things? * Nobody has bothered to give you a reason * Nobody has given you a reason you understand or accept > > Peter Riedt > > > > > Peter Riedt
From: Inertial on 8 May 2010 05:32 "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:fc673e8c-aef5-4ef1-9852-5b365fd535ad(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On May 7, 5:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Peter Riedt" <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:cfacf753-09dd-45e6-8521-b66306b7a1e5(a)32g2000prq.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Expansion = contraction >> >> > Lorentz contraction formula L1=L*sqrt(1-(c/v)^2) applied to the >> > parallel arm of MMX explained the null result of the interferometer >> > experiment. >> >> > My expansion formula L1=L*sqrt(1+(c/v)^2) applied to the perpendicular >> > arm explains the same thing. >> >> Why is your formula better? Won't that mean the objects that are fast >> moving toward or away from us would be appearing larger. So a cylinder >> moving thru a tube would expand as it moved and no longer fit. > > Inertial, > > my formula is NOT better than that of Lorentz. Nobody can give > any reason why one should be used over the other. And that makes both > of them wrong. Except that yours is worse .. it doesn't work other than in the trivial case of MMX.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Site for some reason, and forbidden Next: Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum |