Expansion = contraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 8 May 2010 13:07 On May 7, 7:13 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> 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. Uh, no, Peter. That's not how you judge. The theory that works in the wider set of circumstances wins. Relativity works in far more circumstances than you've considered here. > > Peter Riedt > > Peter Riedt
From: BURT on 8 May 2010 15:06 On May 8, 10:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 7:13 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> 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. > > Uh, no, Peter. That's not how you judge. > The theory that works in the wider set of circumstances wins. > Relativity works in far more circumstances than you've considered > here. > > > > > > > Peter Riedt > > > Peter Riedt- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When motion is created it is detectable as weight of energy. Why does relative motion shrink in the distance? Einstein never pointed out that it is always in the opposite direction of a known motion through space. Mitch Raemsch
From: glird on 12 May 2010 16:03 On May 7, 8:59 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "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. >> > >< 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. > Dorkian J Androcles W seems too stupid to realize that c/v is always greater than 1, thus so is (v/c)^2, thus so is sqrt(1+(c/v)^2). As to "L1=L*sqrt(1-(c/v)^2", which is NOT what Lorentz wrote, since c/v is always greater than 1, as is (c/v)^2; the sqrt of 1 - 1+ is either non-existent or imagniary. Btw: there are an infinite number of groups, in which the corrective factor in the perpendicular axes can have any value at all, that satisfy the MMX results, as long as the deformation in the direction o v is q times that in the perp axes, where q = sqrt[c^2-v^2/ c^2). glird
From: glird on 12 May 2010 17:44 /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) snip Lorentz's formula was x' = beta*el*x, in which beta^2 = c^2/(c^2-v^2), so beta = sqrt[c^2/(c^2- v^2)]. Evidently Peter thought that c^2/(c^2-v^2) reduces to 1-(c/v)^2; thus that by letting L1 replace x' and L replace x,and setting el = 1 as L did, beta*el*x -> L1 = L*sqrt(1-(c/v)^2). However, c^2/(c^2-v^2) DOESN'T reduce to 1-(c/v)^2. If you don't believe me, Peter, try it yourself. For simplicity, let c = 1 unit/sec and v be a fraction of c; i.e. v = .6c or .8c. Example for v = .6c: sqrt[c^2/(c^2-v^2)] -> sqrt[1/(1-.36)] = 1.25, and sqrt(1-(c/v)^2) -> sqrt[1-(1/.6)^2] = sqrt(-1.777) = "Error". Regards, glird
From: John Polasek on 12 May 2010 20:48 On Thu, 6 May 2010 23:35:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Riedt <riedt1(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 I haven't read all the messages in this thread but has no one pointed out to you that you've got the term c/v upside down? it should be v/c. How much actual work have you done with this equation? John Polasek
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Site for some reason, and forbidden Next: Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum |