🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:51:03 GMT, "MathMagician" <Math@Magic.co.uk> wrote:

>
><rotchm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1169478732.985047.109090@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> However, the basic reasoning exemplified in the above quoted text
>>> implies instead of contraction of moving objects the exact contrary:
>>> contraction of the rigid ether with respect to moving objects. In
>>> LET (inasfar as it is not "a clever restatement" of SR), contraction
>>> results from the motion through the ether [3], so contraction of the
>>> ether with respect to moving objects is impossible.
>> 
>> Correct. Your quoted example is wrong. It should be the other way.
>> 
>>>Since he is moving at speed v, the length of the object is v*dt, where
>>>dt is the time it takes him to traverse the length of the object - but
>>>which  "dt" will he use?  Naturally if he bases his length estimate on
>>> the  measure of the time interval recorded on a ground clock, he will
>>>have dt = L/v, so he will judge the object to be v*(L/v) = L
>> 
>> That is totally wrong as you noted. The author of that claim has either
>> screwed up or
>> is....  <cough, cough>.
>> 
>> LET and SR perdict that a measurement of the lenght of the object will
>> be v*dt where dt is the measured time (clock) and v the measured speed.
>> The v*dt will yield L/gamma in both theories.
>
>Who cares?,  they are both ridiculous.
>  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm

That is not a good demo.

In the MMX, the observer is always at rest wrt the apparatus.
....and you have proved again that you are a closet aetherist...