The Lorenz transform seems to be in conflict with the wave model for light. This opinion was introduced by Michelson in 1887. Arguments in favour of Michelson is presented here.
Yes, SR is wrong. Possibly see my comment on the matter by Gary Stephens:
Perhaps someone can explain to me how light propagating at (c + v) & (c - v) relative to the end of the rod is "constancy of the velocity of light" ?
Jan & Preston
The Lorentz transform was in conflict with the wave model in 1887. Ether wind inside the wave front can cause light to take a longer way without taking longer time. This was not understood in 1887, so time dilation was invented in error, and this gave us the absurd Lorentz transform. Many scientists still do not understand the wave model.
John-Erik
Time dilatation was not "invented", it was a logical outcome of the theory back at the time and since 1971, when the Hafele-Keating experiment was conducted, it has been an experimentally well-verified fact.
That means if you wanted to get rid of relativity in general or the Lorentz transform in particular, your replacements for them still would have to involve time dilatation, otherwise they would be wrong.
Jürgen Weippert
"Time dilatation was not "invented", it was a logical outcome of the theory back at the time ..."
Time dilation is a concept that arose in connection with the Special Theory of Relativity, (SR or STR).
Yes, one could say that time dilation was a logical result that emerged from a number of physical, mathematical and logical assumptions. But if any of the elements involved is wrong then the result is also wrong.
In my opinion, the error lies in the use of Lorentz Transformations and their application to physical phenomena from our reality. All derivations of LT (that I have analyzed) lead to contradiction.
"the Hafele-Keating experiment ... has been an experimentally well-verified fact"
The Hafele-Keating experiment CANNOT be used as an argument supporting SR. In this experiment, THERE ARE NO inertial reference frames, IRFs.
"That means if you wanted to get rid of relativity in general or the Lorentz transform in particular, your replacements for them still would have to involve time dilatation, otherwise they would be wrong."
This is a general statement that deviates from research methods.
Preprint A Logical Critique of Time Dilation in Special Relativity
Preprint A Logical Critique of Length Contraction in Special Relativity
Preprint A Logical Critique of Special Relativity: The Question of Un...
Well, you have demonstrated already on previous threads that you have not understood the process of gaining knowledge in physics. Your ideological rejection based on denying experimental data is not going to advance physics.
Jurgen
That means if you wanted to get rid of relativity in general or the Lorentz transform in particular, your replacements for them still would have to involve time dilatation, otherwise they would be wrong.
The Lorentz transform is absurd. There is no effect from ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX. According to the wave model an ether wind inside the wave fronts cannot tilt the wave fronts. We do not need the absurd dilation of time.
John-Erik
Jan
In my opinion, the error lies in the use of Lorentz Transformations and their application to physica l phenomena from our reality. All derivations of LT (that I have analyzed) lead to contradiction.
Yes, the Lorentz transform is absurd, since there is no effect from the ether wind in the transverse arm in MMX, according to the wave model. No time dilation.
Michelson got a nervous break-down, when Lorentz spoiled physics (1887), and Einstein reused the erratic outcome and invented a new theory, which made the mistake even more difficult to find (1905).
John-Erik
Jürgen Weippert
"Well, you have demonstrated already on previous threads that you have not understood the process of gaining knowledge in physics."
Can you quote more precisely from my previous threads that I don't understand the process of gaining knowledge in physics.
I wonder what process you mean?
"Your ideological rejection based on denying experimental data is not going to advance physics."
I work primarily with mathematics and logic. Can you be more specific about where I use ideology to reject experimental data?
Weippert
That means if you wanted to get rid of relativity in general or the Lorentz transform in particular, your replacements for them still would have to involve time dilatation, otherwise they would be wrong.
No. The Lorentz transform is based on the assumption of an effect from ether wind in the reference arm in MMX. This effect is not real, since an ether wind inside the wave fronts cannot tilt the wave fronts, according to the wave model - and this means that we do not need time dilation.
John-Erik
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing