[Bill S]

I'm struggling with David's posts.  I'm always interested in ideas that are outside the accepted "wisdom", but often don't have the scientific knowledge to do justice to them.

I'm still hoping that someone will join in with comments that will clarify things (at hitch-hiker level).

[PmbPhy]

Fitzgerald had submitted a saver claim (contraction) for aether concept against the negative result of Michelson - Morley experiment.

It's not a claim and never was. Lorentz stated it as a postulate for the null result of the MMX and its something that is subject to observation. A "claim" is something that is stated with no evidence of it being valid. That's not the same thing as a postulate.

The Lorentz validity of Lorentz contraction has been demonstrated many times. One observation concerns the observation of muons which are created in the upper atmosphere. For details see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Lorentz contraction also manifests itself by observations of the EM field surrounding conductors. For details see:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/em/rotating_magnet.htm

Whether or not someone has actually constructed an experiment, run it and recorded the results is another story. However I'm fairly sure that there's ample evidence out there which imply it.

One thing to understand regarding the validity of various things is that one makes a prediction and then constructs an experiment and/or makes an observation. If the observation contradicts the prediction then what led to the prediction is wrong. If the observation is consistent with the prediction then we have more confidence in the prediction and what led us to the prediction.

Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR) one can derive the Lorentz contraction from the two postulates of SR, i.e. in SR Lorentz contraction is not a postulate but is derived.

If you've never seen the derivation of Lorentz contraction and know algebra then you can follow the derivation at the web page I created for that purpose. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction.htm

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Fitzgerald had submitted a saver claim (contraction) for aether concept against the negative result of Michelson - Morley experiment.

1- It's not a claim and never was. Lorentz stated it as a postulate for the null result of the MMX and its something that is subject to observation. A "claim" is something that is stated with no evidence of it being valid. That's not the same thing as a postulate.

2- The Lorentz validity of Lorentz contraction has been demonstrated many times. One observation concerns the observation of muons which are created in the upper atmosphere. For details see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Lorentz contraction also manifests itself by observations of the EM field surrounding conductors. For details see:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/em/rotating_magnet.htm

Whether or not someone has actually constructed an experiment, run it and recorded the results is another story. However I'm fairly sure that there's ample evidence out there which imply it.

One thing to understand regarding the validity of various things is that one makes a prediction and then constructs an experiment and/or makes an observation. If the observation contradicts the prediction then what led to the prediction is wrong. If the observation is consistent with the prediction then we have more confidence in the prediction and what led us to the prediction.

3- Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR) one can derive the Lorentz contraction from the two postulates of SR, i.e. in SR Lorentz contraction is not a postulate but is derived.

If you've never seen the derivation of Lorentz contraction and know algebra then you can follow the derivation at the web page I created for that purpose. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction.htm

1-   Is a saver/reviver idea requirement for aether hypothesis? There is already Maxwell’s determination for radiating of light.  Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and the theory SR want to verify aether hypothesis. And similar following efforts will fall to position of AD-HOC. We know anymore that the light can radiate in vacuum without physical medium/aether. Is the insistence a logic attitude about a quitted hypothesis?

2-   The muon paragraph of your link:

“ The range of action of muons at high velocities is much higher than that of slower ones. The atmosphere has its proper length in the Earth frame, while the increased muon range is explained by their longer lifetimes due to time dilation (see Time dilation of moving particles). However, in the muon frame their lifetime is unchanged but the atmosphere is contracted so that even their small range is sufficient to reach the surface of earth. “


I had read some scientific article about muons. If you make half-read, the phrase “slower ones” may convinces you. If you deeply research this subject, you will see that slower muons are produced in laboratory; whereas the velocities atmospheric muons and laboratory muons have similar value. But, these articles consider the speed value of laboratory muons as zero. Some scientists may delude himself or they may want to misinform.


3-   Yes if you accept the postulate that a moving body (*) can be reference frame for the motion of light, you can derive length contraction. However, there is an alternative option: the space can be considered as co-reference frame for the motions of light and other actors (source, observer, etc. … everything).  This analysis is possible and we must not forbid this option.


(*) Moving body or light’s source is always a relative object; therefore to give a reference role to source is a defect like first Galilei event (The Earth was considered as a main reference frame for Sun’s motion, whereas indeed, Earth is relative position according to Sun). So, local-centric analyses cannot be accuracy for universal subjects like light’s motion.


Finally, people want experimental evidence for many events. However if we would like some fantastic inferences because of our archetypal mysticism passion, we may want to ignore these experimental evidences. But the genuine reality has already force major.

[guest4091]

1-   Is a saver/reviver idea requirement for aether hypothesis? There is already Maxwell’s determination for radiating of light.  Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and the theory SR want to verify aether hypothesis. And similar following efforts will fall to position of AD-HOC. We know anymore that the light can radiate in vacuum without physical medium/aether. Is the insistence a logic attitude about a quitted hypothesis?

Research Oliver Heaviside and discover length contraction was developed within the analysis of em transmission in the 1880's, and was the source for Fitzgeralds suggestion.
Like the transistor, it was an idea waiting for an application.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Research Oliver Heaviside and discover length contraction was developed within the analysis of em transmission in the 1880's, and was the source for Fitzgeralds suggestion.
Like the transistor, it was an idea waiting for an application.

Thanks for information. Fitzgerald has been inspired by Oliver Heaviside; length contraction may not be a propohecy.

However, my experiment does not support this hypothesis.

If we want to apply positive discrimination for length contraction and the theory SR  we can accept visual effects /  wrong perception because of limited/finite value of light's velocity / illusion (Already we see an illusion when we look to sky; each one of bright points has not current position and current age). Even the changing of time tempo is a visual deformation (If we observe a clock that is on a rocket, if the rocket is moving away from us we perceive slower tempo at the clock by a telescope; if the rocket is nearing to us we perceive faster tempo at the clock (similar slow motion or fast motion films).

[yor_on]

3. sounds awfully alike a 'absolute frame' xersanozgen. And as there is nothing to differ one point in space and time from another, without referencing suns etc, it becomes meaningless. You need a observer and you need something to observe. That's what the MMX experiment set out to prove by trying to measure a 'aether wind'.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

3. sounds awfully alike a 'absolute frame' xersanozgen. And as there is nothing to differ one point in space and time from another, without referencing suns etc, it becomes meaningless. You need a observer and you need something to observe. That's what the MMX experiment set out to prove by trying to measure a 'aether wind'.

Congratulations. "Absolute frame" concept is familiar for us as a habit. In fundamental physics and mechanics the Earth or local place has been used as a co-reference frame. Absolute frame  is  main/primary method; classical relativity  is a seconder solution method. But relativity methods contain some conditions e.g. equivalency of actors (there is aquıivalency in the problems for two cars on the same road but this condition never be realized in  the relation of sun-earth). Therefore absolute reference frame must be outmost /most external frame for universal problems like light kinematics.

[yor_on]

But it's a 'absolute frame' connecting nothing xersanozgen?
Sure, it's what contain everything else, classically a 'nothing', but how would you use it?
Can't point to nothing as a 'anchor'.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

But it's a 'absolute frame' connecting nothing xersanozgen?
Sure, it's what contain everything else, classically a 'nothing', but how would you use it?
Can't point to nothing as a 'anchor'.

A good  / hard question.

However we have a solution and we have possibility of cosmological analysis.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

But it's a 'absolute frame' connecting nothing xersanozgen?
Sure, it's what contain everything else, classically a 'nothing', but how would you use it?
Can't point to nothing as a 'anchor'.

A good  / hard question.

However we have a solution and we have possibility of cosmological analysis.

Nature does not care our human's cognitive performance; the algorithm/mechanism of Nature does not consider what human will analyze the events.

However, we are not helpless. We can/must activate  time  dimension; so 4D analyzing (even 5D; the fifth dimension is to consider  position of actors on the hierarchical ranking: Moon, Earth, Sun, Milky way, Local group, super groups, filaments,...universe, multiverse...space or LCS).

If we use 4D method; the coordinates of sky objects are determined on outmost frame (space); so, here is the "connecting"

Besides, we can use a sheet of paper as space or LCS (Light Coordinate System) for cosmological analyses. This method was realized ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhyEs..26...49E).