mgconsolidated@googlemail.com wrote:

This depends on what you mean by those words.

Here's an analogy: a ladder will fit through a doorway if it is oriented
correctly, and won't fit if it is oriented differently -- is this
difference "physical"? -- after all neither the length of the ladder nor
the width of the doorway change in any way. This is an example of
GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION -- if the projection of the ladder's length onto
the doorway's width is small then it fits, and if that projection is
large then it won't; this depends on their relative orientation.

Lorentz "length contraction" is similar: the invariant length of an
object is GEOMETRICALLY PROJECTED onto a coordinate system, and
depending on orientation the projected value of that length can be less
than the invariant length of the object (the invariant length of an
object is its length in its own rest frame).

kenseto wrote:

...

"Tom Roberts" sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nBjji.25411$C96.18792@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...

of

kenseto wrote:

No.

A LET observer assumes that the ether is at (absolute) rest, but that
her motion relative to the ether distorts her instruments such that the
results of her measurements will be the same AS IF she were at rest
relative to the ether.

An SR observer knows that "rest" has no meaning except relative to some
inertial coordinates, and for simplicity naturally selects an inertial
frame in which she is at rest.

Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yGsji.3606$bz7.352@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

assume

What kind of double talk is this? Isn't this is the same as a LET observer
assume that he is at rest in the ether?

Dono wrote:

You are confused. LET includes more than just "object contraction" --
it includes time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, just like SR;
indeed LET is experimentally indistinguishable from SR. The predictions
of either LET or SR are consistent with all the experiments you listed
(independent of whichever frame one chooses as the LET ether frame).

So none of those experiments falsify LET; they all confirm its
predictions. Ditto for SR.

On Jul 6, 12:01 pm, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Tom,

I showed you quite clearly why CURRENT versions of LET cannot include
"object contraction" since "object contraction" has been already
falsified by the listed experiments. Please read my post again.

On Jul 6, 12:01 pm, Tom Roberts

As an aside, the 1904 paper STILL Contains the Lorentz-FitxGerald
contraction in the paragraph explaining the null result of MMX. The
Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction "survived" until 1908. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton-rankine

Absolutely not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouton-rankine

Dono wrote:

Re-reading does not change it. LET is experimentally indistinguishable
from SR. The experiments you listed refute a theory which has JUST
"object contraction", but do not refute either SR or LET.

At base, you are confused about what LET means. Around here, and in the
literature, it has always meant the theory Lorentz introduced in his
1904 paper:

H.A.Lorentz, "Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving
with any Velocity less than that of Light", Proc. Acad. Sci.
Amsterdam, 6, 1940. Reprinted in Dover's book:
Einstein et al, _The_Principle_of_Relativity_.

He amplified it in his monograph _Theory_of_Electrons_ (1916), in which
he also acknowledged that Einstein's approach was superior.

Tom Roberts

On Jul 6, 5:56 pm, Tom Roberts sbcglobal.net> wrote:

That's not the point. The point is that , if you continue with your
claim that contemporary LEt is based on "object contraction" this
renders LET false based on the experimental falsification that dates
back to 1908.

Repeating your matra "LET is indistinguishable from SR" (and even
worse "SR shares object contraction with LET" completely misses the
point.