Solve the Lorentz transform for t', x',
y', and z', and the resulting inverse Lorentz transform [...]

Peri of Pera wrote:
When Michelson and Morley believed they could detect the ether with
the famous interferometer experiment (MMX), they never thought in
terms of frames. Neither did Lorentz when he tried to explain the
unexpected null result of the experiment by his contraction theory in
1899.

This is just plain wrong. While they used a different vocabulary back
then, the underlying concept of inertial frame was essential. In
particular, it was not necessary to mention what everybody knew -- that
all their equations were valid only in an inertial frame. Today, knowing
the lessons of GR, we need to be more precise.

Tom Roberts

Peri of Pera wrote:
Contraction re-interpretation or misrepresentation?

When Michelson and Morley believed they could detect the ether with
the famous interferometer experiment (MMX), they never thought in
terms of frames. Neither did Lorentz when he tried to explain the
unexpected null result of the experiment by his contraction theory in
1899. Einstein by 1905 had also derived the same formulas that Lorentz
and others before Lorentz had published. The original contraction
theory of Lorentz which was accepted by Einstein had the moving object
shrink and be subject to time dilation. The contraction of a moving
object was in proportion to its own speed and time dilation was the
reciprocal of this contraction.  Today, these ideas have been
discarded. A two-frame ideology has been put forward. The moving
object is in one ‘frame’, an observer moving with a different speed in
the other ‘frame’.

No, you've missed it. Both objects are in both frames, at rest
in one, moving in the other.

Now, the difference in the speed of the observer
and an observed object is used as the value of v in the Lorentz
contraction formula instead of the speed of the moving object.

Makes no difference. Solve the Lorentz transform for t', x',
y', and z', and the resulting inverse Lorentz transform
differs from the forward transform in that the sign on terms
where v appears to an odd power is flipped, and in no other
way. Thus the inverse transform is the same as what we get by
substituting -v for v in the Lorentz transform.

If the velocity of the object relative to the observer is v,
then the velocity of the observer relative to the object is
-v, and in fact which direction we define as positive and
which as negative is an arbitrary matter of labeling. Swap
the two transforms everywhere, and we get identical results.

The
result is a perceived contraction which does not say anything of the
state or condition of either the observed object or the observer. And
time dilation? This is even more useless than ‘perceived’ contraction.
It does not apply to the observed object nor the observer nor anything
else even though it is still used in situations like the twin paradox,
muon life cycles and speeding clocks. Lorentz and Einstein are still
hailed as great scientists but their theories are now misrepresented
as they have been re-interpreted in a fundamental way.

Another of Peter Riedt's attempts gets a big red X through it. He
thought he had hit upon some important distinction, but really he
simply did not understand the material well enough to know that
the theory implies the cases he distinguishes to be identical.

--
--Bryan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peri of Pera wrote:
When Michelson and Morley believed they could detect the ether with
the famous interferometer experiment (MMX), they never thought in
terms of frames. Neither did Lorentz when he tried to explain the
unexpected null result of the experiment by his contraction theory in
1899.

This is just plain wrong. While they used a different vocabulary back
then, the underlying concept of inertial frame was essential. In
particular, it was not necessary to mention what everybody knew -- that
all their equations were valid only in an inertial frame. Today, knowing
the lessons of GR, we need to be more precise.

Tom Roberts

On Apr 27, 2:15 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
When Michelson and Morley believed they could detect the ether with
the famous interferometer experiment (MMX), they never thought in
terms of frames. Neither did Lorentz when he tried to explain the
unexpected null result of the experiment by his contraction theory in
1899.
This is just plain wrong. While they used a different vocabulary back
then, the underlying concept of inertial frame was essential. In
particular, it was not necessary to mention what everybody knew -- that
all their equations were valid only in an inertial frame. Today, knowing
the lessons of GR, we need to be more precise.

Your statement that special relativity applies only to inertial
systems is correct.

For Einstein, the value of v in the Lorentz
transformation formula L’=L*sqrt(1-vv/cc)

[...]

On Apr 27, 4:13 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
Contraction re-interpretation or misrepresentation?
When Michelson and Morley believed they could detect the ether with
the famous interferometer experiment (MMX), they never thought in
terms of frames. Neither did Lorentz when he tried to explain the
unexpected null result of the experiment by his contraction theory in
1899. Einstein by 1905 had also derived the same formulas that Lorentz
and others before Lorentz had published. The original contraction
theory of Lorentz which was accepted by Einstein had the moving object
shrink and be subject to time dilation. The contraction of a moving
object was in proportion to its own speed and time dilation was the
reciprocal of this contraction. Today, these ideas have been
discarded. A two-frame ideology has been put forward. The moving
object is in one ‘frame’, an observer moving with a different speed in
the other ‘frame’.
No, you've missed it. Both objects are in both frames, at rest
in one, moving in the other.

Now, the difference in the speed of the observer
and an observed object is used as the value of v in the Lorentz
contraction formula instead of the speed of the moving object.
Makes no difference. Solve the Lorentz transform for t', x',
y', and z', and the resulting inverse Lorentz transform
differs from the forward transform in that the sign on terms
where v appears to an odd power is flipped, and in no other
way. Thus the inverse transform is the same as what we get by
substituting -v for v in the Lorentz transform.

If the velocity of the object relative to the observer is v,
then the velocity of the observer relative to the object is
-v, and in fact which direction we define as positive and
which as negative is an arbitrary matter of labeling. Swap
the two transforms everywhere, and we get identical results.

The
result is a perceived contraction which does not say anything of the
state or condition of either the observed object or the observer. And
time dilation? This is even more useless than ‘perceived’ contraction.
It does not apply to the observed object nor the observer nor anything
else even though it is still used in situations like the twin paradox,
muon life cycles and speeding clocks. Lorentz and Einstein are still
hailed as great scientists but their theories are now misrepresented
as they have been re-interpreted in a fundamental way.

Another of Peter Riedt's attempts gets a big red X through it. He
thought he had hit upon some important distinction, but really he
simply did not understand the material well enough to know that
the theory implies the cases he distinguishes to be identical.

the calculation of the Lorentz transforms is not the question.

The
question is the source of v in the formula L'=L*sqrt(1-vv/cc).
Originally it represented the speed of a moving object and identified
changes to that object.

Now it represents the speed of an observer in
a different frame relative to the object and identifies nothing.

I am
sure you understand that distinction just as I am sure you do not want
to admit it.