Expansion = contraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Riedt on 7 May 2010 02:35 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
From: Inertial on 7 May 2010 05:00 "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(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.
From: eric gisse on 7 May 2010 06:02 Peter Riedt 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 Did you know there is more evidence for relativity than a single 19th century experiment?
From: PD on 7 May 2010 15:32 On May 7, 1:35 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 Yes, Peter, it does. Unfortunately, a theory is not decided on the basis of one experiment. Your insistence that you have a theory that is JUST AS GOOD AS RELATIVITY because it explains the MMX just as well, is simply off- base. Theories are accepted because they work in hundreds of applications, and in the case of relativity, there have not only been that but there have been dozens of different and crucial experiments that have specifically been designed to test different aspects of relativity. They have all supported relativity. In order for your theory to even begin to compete, it would have to show comparable results for all the experiments that have been done to test relativity so far. PD
From: BURT on 7 May 2010 15:50 On May 7, 12:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 1:35 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 > > Yes, Peter, it does. > Unfortunately, a theory is not decided on the basis of one experiment. > Your insistence that you have a theory that is JUST AS GOOD AS > RELATIVITY because it explains the MMX just as well, is simply off- > base. > > Theories are accepted because they work in hundreds of applications, > and in the case of relativity, there have not only been that but there > have been dozens of different and crucial experiments that have > specifically been designed to test different aspects of relativity. > They have all supported relativity. > > In order for your theory to even begin to compete, it would have to > show comparable results for all the experiments that have been done to > test relativity so far. > > PD Relativity cannot explain how relative motion shrinks in the distance. And Albert Einstein never noted that it is always in an opposite direction to a known motion through space. Mitch Raemsch
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Site for some reason, and forbidden Next: Subatomic Particle Mass/Stability Spectrum |