🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:15:05 GMT, "Dumbledore_" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_q>
wrote:

>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:ho0rr2pg16khti8c2ahfoubmhlob1u3h9f@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
>It's better than any you've made.

How about: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe

You are really demonstrating the light clock principle, not the MMX.

The MMX requires that you explain the difference in travel times between the
parallel and transverse rays for different speeds through the 'aether'.

>> In the MMX, the observer is always at rest wrt the apparatus.
>
>Yeah, so ? 
>
>"To the "stationary" observer on the left the yellow path of the "tip of the ray" as Einstein calls it (which he/she never observes) "
>
>Can't you fucking read, dumbfuck jealous ozzie?

There is only one observer who is always stationary wrt the apparatus.

Why don't you demonstrate a light clock?

>> ....and you have proved again that you are a closet aetherist...
>> 
>> 
>>