From 1887 To 1905, Does Anyone Know A Fourth Method To Derivate Lorentz Transforms?

5 replies to this topic

#1 rhertz

rhertz

Questioning

• Members
• 148 posts

Posted 10 May 2019 - 01:44 PM

The three methods registered in history are:

1. 1887: Voigt (the original developer)
2. 1904-1905: Lorentz + Poincarè (Poincarè made the correct formula for time)
3. 1905: Einstein (beam of light bouncing back and forth within a train, between mirrors)

Please, don't use any method developed AFTER this period, including Einstein's ones.

Example: posterior derivations by using

x' = x-vt     and     x'=ct'

plus

x = x'+vt     and    x=ct

and linear replacements don't count.

Edited by rhertz, 10 May 2019 - 01:45 PM.

#2 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1030 posts

Posted 11 May 2019 - 01:58 AM

The Lorentz factor drops directly out of the geometry of the MM experiment, if I remember correctly.

If I can find the time I will post that or maybe it can be found on line.

#3 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1030 posts

Posted 11 May 2019 - 08:52 AM

What happened decades after the MM experiment?

The MM experiment was conducted in 1887. (In fact, Michelson developed a prototype of his interferometer in 1881)

Many physicists—including Woldemar Voigt, George FitzGerald, Joseph Larmor, and Hendrik Lorentz himself—had been discussing the physics implied by these transformations also since 1887, specifically to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, in the MMX, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. So, I am not sure what you are trying to say happened “decades after 1887”. In fact Voigt’s paper that you are linking, is also dated 1887.

It looks to me the MMX experiments were in the forefront studying light as being independent of reference frame, and if you examine the geometry of the interferometer, you will see that the factor $\frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1-\frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } } } }$ is right there, in the geometry.

G.F. Fitzgerald and H.A. Lorentz proposed in the 1890s, that if the horizontal arm of the interferometer were to contract by the value $\frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1-\frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } } } }$, in the direction of motion of the interferometer through the ether, that would sufficiently explain the null result the experiment was showing.

So, you seem to like conspiracy/collusion theories; did Lorentz and Fitzgerald collude and conspire to use MM’s experiment to formulate the Lorentz transform? Did Einstein then steal it all away from them? Was there much bloodshed?

Or, was it simply a matter of many distinguished scientists working either together or independently, in a spirit of cooperation, to solve the same problem? It was Einstein who came up with the most plausible, scientifically consistent theory, and that is why the Theory of Relativity bears his name.

Well, either that or all the rest of the group felt he had the coolest name for such an important theory. Who can top “Einstein” as a cool name to put on a revolutionary new theory? I think Shelley’s Frankenstein monster story was popular around those times as well and may have had an influence.

Either way, in the great stream of things, who really cares?

Edited by OceanBreeze, 11 May 2019 - 08:53 AM.

• exchemist likes this

#4 sluggo

sluggo

Questioning

• Members
• 172 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:06 AM

rhertz#6;

c+v violates the point 1), as the new speed of light c' = c+v exceeds the value

In fig.1, U serves as a reference frame, describing the motion of A. The blue lines (0RD) represent a light pulse sent by A that reflects from an object at R in the U frame. Speeds are expressed in terms of c, and c is designated as 1, so A's speed v is c/2 or .5. The vertical axis labeled ct is equivalent to t. The angle of the light path is always at 45 deg and therefore constant. If two objects have different velocities, they are convrging or diverging. The time for light to move between the two depends on the velocities of both, thus using c±v. Those measurements serve to calculate the round trip signal time for A. The A-clock which was synched to the U-clock at t=0, now reads 2.31 while the U-clock reads 2.67.
Fig.2 is A's perception of events. At t=2.31 she detected the reflected signal, (R' per SR) from an object at a distance x=1.16.
It also shows that using the LET with relative speeds c
±v (.5, 1.5), results in the same round trip time, but with a delayed reflection R''.
Why the inability to distinguish LET from SR?
In SR, events do not move, thus forming a basis for the invariant interval, which initially was an equality (per Einstein).

(x1)^2+(x2)^2+(x3)^2=(ct)^2

In LET the ether is a fixed/static medium.

#5 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 650 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:55 AM

Here's a video that will help you understand that c+v does not mean a velocity greater than c.

In my algebraic derivation of relativity, I use Yc and Yv avoiding all of Einstein's math gymnastics. If Alice leaves earth at .8c from earth's perspective, she is travelling at Yv = 4/3 c using invariant space with her dilated time. This construct allows her to traverse the universe in very little of her time. Light, from this mixed perspective of x/t' also travels at Yc which is 5/3 c. So she is still travelling slower than light  and that light can catch up to her at Yc which is what Greene is trying to show. Her velocity does not affect her relative velocity to the light chasing her but the light still takes longer and travels a greater distance to catch up to her. Moving objects do not have a relative velocity to light if you use the perspectives of v=x'/t' or v=x/t but light does if you use the mixed perspective of Yv=x/t'. c behaves like any other velocity in this mixed perspective as Yc. You'll need to read my entire thread on relativity and simple algebra to understand what I'm saying but you'll first have to agree Yv=x/t' allows one to travel distances at much greater than c from a mixed perspective of invariant distance covered in dilated time.

PS. Let's use a numerical example. Alice travels 4 ly to proxima centauri at .8c but her clock says she did it in 3 years. She doesn't say that's impossible because light would take 4 yrs to do the same journey so I'll invent length contraction to explain my superluminal speed. Nope, instead she'll conclude light also takes advantage of earth's dilated perspective of her time and say light would make the journey at Yc (5/3 c) and take only 2.4 yrs to cover the 4ly according to her watch but according to earth's watch it took 4 yrs to travel the distance. The light she started with would easily beat her to her destination. v and c are limited to c but Yv and Yc are not limited.

Edited by ralfcis, 14 May 2019 - 12:34 PM.

• Flummoxed likes this

#6 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 650 posts

Posted 14 May 2019 - 02:48 PM

Yes it's all a scam that's why I have my own derivation from one formula c2 = vx2 + vtwhere vt is the velocity through time and vx = velocity through space. You can check out the rest or not.