by crawler » Fri Sep 09, 2022 8:32 pm
Emil wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 12:06 amcrawler wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 11:13 pm
I think that relativistic hypothesis have (can have) meaning. The aetherwind blowing through the lab can affect the experiment. Rods are contracted for sure. The ticking of clocks is affected. The dimensions of the experiment is affected. Often the effects cancel, ie they can be ignored. Anyhow, to be correct, Gigov's equations should include the term c" – which is the apparent speed of light.
The problem then is that all of the relativities are wrong – ie Voigt Cohn Searle FitzGerald Lorentz Poincare Einstein Minkowski – all are wrong to some degree.
So you are a fan of the Lorentz transformations, but they are unproved.
My problem with the Lorentz transform for length contraction is that the equation has been confirmed.
Any MMX that is dunn in vacuum mode confirms it – read Prof Reg Cahill's stuff, he derived the correct calibration.
My problem is that a sensible em radiation analysis tells us that that equation must be overstating the length contraction by say 41%.
But for sure some kind of length contraction (FitzGerald) or width dilation (Lorentz) or a combination (Lorentz) must exist.
Time dilation is a farce. However, clocks must suffer a ticking dilation due to length contraction.
The main factor in all such LC & TD is of course the aetherwind.
[quote=Emil post_id=7726 time=1662681979 user_id=30434][quote=crawler post_id=7723 time=1662678801 user_id=30412]
I think that relativistic hypothesis have (can have) meaning. The aetherwind blowing through the lab can affect the experiment. Rods are contracted for sure. The ticking of clocks is affected. The dimensions of the experiment is affected. Often the effects cancel, ie they can be ignored. Anyhow, to be correct, Gigov's equations should include the term c" – which is the apparent speed of light.
The problem then is that all of the relativities are wrong – ie Voigt Cohn Searle FitzGerald Lorentz Poincare Einstein Minkowski – all are wrong to some degree.[/quote]So you are a fan of the Lorentz transformations, but they are unproved.[/quote]My problem with the Lorentz transform for length contraction is that the equation has been confirmed.
Any MMX that is dunn in vacuum mode confirms it – read Prof Reg Cahill's stuff, he derived the correct calibration.
My problem is that a sensible em radiation analysis tells us that that equation must be overstating the length contraction by say 41%.
But for sure some kind of length contraction (FitzGerald) or width dilation (Lorentz) or a combination (Lorentz) must exist.
Time dilation is a farce. However, clocks must suffer a ticking dilation due to length contraction.
The main factor in all such LC & TD is of course the aetherwind.