Ok, sorry, I thought you said the Lorentz
Transformation had been explicity disproved and I
never had a chance or reason to look it up, so all I
could find was that page written up by some guy as his
own opinions, which are interesting though 'not
necessarily accurate'.
Sorry, didn't catch that you meant the true problem
was that it was misinterpreted. That's why I posted
you a copy of it, hoping you would clarify..thanks!
--- rivas@theriver.com wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
> Remember, I have taken lots of college physics
> courses and the Lorentz
> transform is well documented.
>
> I don't recall saying it doesn't exist. What I
> belive I have said it that
> its a not intrepreted correctly.
>
> What it was invented for was to explain why, from
> an experimental view, the amount of energy to
> move something close to the speed of light goes
> up dramatically and is mathematically explained
> with the Lorentz Xform.
> Einstein glombed onto this, declared based on the
> Michaelson / Morely expt that light speed was a
> constant and the LXform explained why we could
> not travel or move matter faster than C.
>
> later work with other scientists measuring light
> speed is: A. its not constant, B. The light shift
> EW/NS close to the earth is drug along with
> the earth so no drift of aether, C. Light speed
> EW/NS in higher elevations there is a drift
> because the drag is less (less coupleing with the
> atomic structure of the earths atoms), plus a whole
> bunch more...
>
> The real problem with all of this has to do with
> point of view of where you take the measurements.
> I have tons of math to show the whole
> Lorentz/Einstein thing was an erronious way of
> looking at the problem.
>
> Beside, even modern physics has invented tacyons
> and other FTL particles that move greater than C.
> One interesting way of looking at the Einstein work
> is that all the energy in a given mass if converted
to
> light is the amount of energy to move the mass at
> light speed.
>
> Dan
>
> At 08:37 PM 4/15/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi Folks!
> >
> >Noticed there wasn't a clear description of the
> >Lorentz Contraction so check this out;
===
=================================
Please respond to jdecker@keelynet.com
as I am writing from my work email of
jwdatwork@yahoo.com.........thanks!
=================================
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com