From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/19/2025 01:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/05/2025 12:31 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/18/2025 06:14 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/18/2025 09:40 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/17/2025 10:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/16/2025 08:18 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 16:36:19 +0000, rhertz wrote:

Length contraction is the most important pillar of relativity,
originated in the efforts of Lorentz to disprove the MM experiment. >>>>>>>
It's, after all, an inseparable outcome of Lorentz transforms, along >>>>>>> with time dilation.

How come this stupid part of Lorentz transforms has been abandoned, >>>>>>> yet
the twin formula for time dilation is accepted? Both emerged from a >>>>>>> single mathematical framework in 1904/1905 relativity.

If one of them has been dismissed (never proved), why its associated >>>>>>> formula for time has been accepted?

It's an example of hypocrisy in physics, and also a sample of the >>>>>>> pseudoscience that relativity is.

Consider applying length contraction to an electron moving at
0.99999 c.
It should be perceived as a flat disk. This concept caused that
Lorentz
(and Einstein's plagiarism) calculated longitudinal and traversal >>>>>>> masses.

What is the conclusion? That the 1905 SR paper has only 4 pages
out of
26 with some perdurable concepts, as time passed? Or better yet: >>>>>>> SR is
only ONE of the two Lorentz transforms?

Stupid it is, no matter from which angle you approach to that
fucking
paper.

"I attach special importance to the view of geometry which I have
just
set forth, because without it I should have been unable to formulate >>>>>> the
theory of relativity. Without it the following reflection would have >>>>>> been impossible:- In a system of reference rotating relatively to an >>>>>> inert system, the laws of disposition of rigid bodies do not
correspond
to the rules of Euclidean geometry on account of the Lorentz
contraction; thus if we admit non-inert systems we must abandon
Euclidean geometry. The decisive step in the transition to general >>>>>> co-variant equations would certainly not have been taken if the above >>>>>> interpretation had not served as a stepping-stone." - Einstein in
"Geometry & Experience"

The space-contraction and it's more FitzGeraldian keeps
the length-contraction and time-dilation together and
furthermore keeps things continuous for Poincare, ...

Einstein <- energy

Fresnel
FitzGerald
Faraday
FinlayFreundlich <- forces/fields

Lorentzians, now again Lagrangians


The "energy equivalency" is a "convenient conceit"
yet it's "sorta stupid".

I suppose you could add Fizeau, then that Fizeau is
sort of "weak SR-ians" and Faraday, Fizeau, Freundlich
sort of make for "schizo E&M SR-ians", while FitzGerald
is the bit more "proper GR-ians", though of course each
are sort of proper themselves, that big E is rather mute.

Fermi, I suppose there's Fermi, ....

Of course there's Fatio, for gravity the gravific,
for example as with regards to De Donder.

See, each these has different conditions for the
_spaces_ and _frames_ of the _energy_ its _entelechy_
thus that the _sources_ and _propagations_ of the
emitters for detectors _varies_ yet as well that
they're all one thing overall governed by GR.

... with dynamics.



Schizos, ....

See, the hive-mind has a bit of a split-brain,
and their derivations in their inductive accounts
don't well jibe and then when they're put together
in a neat sort of palliative after electron physics
the e/m ratio, then correspondingly derivations what
either arrive at or define equivalencies, has that
defined equivalencies have lost the way back from
whence they otherwise would've came, and so this
sort of reintegrative account helps to show and
fulfill that unification of physics includes the
necessary detail of reflections in derivations
and less so the simplicitur their stipulations.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2