# Lorentz Contraction : Reconsideration

nakayama
nakayama
Lorentz Contraction is said to be proposed to explain MM-X. Premise of MM-X is aether. Yes, aether exists. Inertial force will be one of evidences. However, in human scale, light does not follow aether frame. The measurement of c (done in vacuum) is one of evidences. Premise of MM-X was an illusion.

An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion relative to a light source that is sending circular waves of light. Constancy of light speed (relative to the observer) is unthinkable. All of Lorentz Contraction must be reconsidered I believe.

nakayama
nakayama
Some pictures on “light rays in a moving passenger car” are in my web-site (as pictures on light speed). In these pictures, Lorentz contraction seems to be useless (at all). However, pictures such a level will had been shown in the past (by someone).

nakayama
nakayama
Lorentz Contraction is said to be proposed to explain MM-X. Premise of MM-X is aether. Yes, aether exists. Inertial force will be one of evidences. However, in human scale, light does not follow aether frame. The measurement of c (done in vacuum) is one of evidences. Premise of MM-X was an illusion.

An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion relative to a light source that is sending circular waves of light. Constancy of light speed (relative to the observer) is unthinkable. All of Lorentz Contraction must be reconsidered I believe.
In MM experiment (done in vacuum), number of waves existing on light paths that are diverged by half mirror is the same. Therefore, if light speed (relative to the apparatus) is constant, Lorentz contraction must be denied.

nakayama
nakayama
Lorentz Contraction is said to be proposed to explain MM-X. Premise of MM-X is aether. Yes, aether exists. Inertial force will be one of evidences. However, in human scale, light does not follow aether frame. The measurement of c (done in vacuum) is one of evidences. Premise of MM-X was an illusion.

An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion relative to a light source that is sending circular waves of light. Constancy of light speed (relative to the observer) is unthinkable. All of Lorentz Contraction must be reconsidered I believe.
A passenger car is moving. Two light rays are sent from a source (frequency is constant) set on the floor and are reflected by mirrors set on the roof and are coming back to the source (the light path forms oblong letter V). Number of waves that stays on the path is the same to an observer stands on the ground (because it's an invariant). This picture will support the emission theory. Not only Lorentz contraction, but also constancy of light speed and relativity of simultaneity will be denied.

nakayama
nakayama
Lorentz Contraction is said to be proposed to explain MM-X. Premise of MM-X is aether. Yes, aether exists. Inertial force will be one of evidences. However, in human scale, light does not follow aether frame. The measurement of c (done in vacuum) is one of evidences. Premise of MM-X was an illusion.

An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion relative to a light source that is sending circular waves of light. Constancy of light speed (relative to the observer) is unthinkable. All of Lorentz Contraction must be reconsidered I believe.
Light speed is measured by K.M Evenson and others (1973). Light source is laser (man-made source). It shows that the emission theory is valid.

nakayama
nakayama
Lorentz Contraction is said to be proposed to explain MM-X. Premise of MM-X is aether. Yes, aether exists. Inertial force will be one of evidences. However, in human scale, light does not follow aether frame. The measurement of c (done in vacuum) is one of evidences. Premise of MM-X was an illusion.

An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion relative to a light source that is sending circular waves of light. Constancy of light speed (relative to the observer) is unthinkable. All of Lorentz Contraction must be reconsidered I believe.
Allow me to rewrite previous post(26 Nov 12:41 AM)as follows.

An apparatus of MM experiment is working (in vacuum). The number of waves existing on light paths that are diverged by half mirror is invariable (to below decimal point. interference fringes does not vary). There is an observer moving relative to the apparatus.
To the observer, the number of waves is invariable also (it is an invariant). Therefore, if light speed (to the observer) is constant, Lorentz contraction must be denied.

nakayama
nakayama
Lorentz Contraction is said to be proposed to explain MM-X. Premise of MM-X is aether. Yes, aether exists. Inertial force will be one of evidences. However, in human scale, light does not follow aether frame. The measurement of c (done in vacuum) is one of evidences. Premise of MM-X was an illusion.

An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion relative to a light source that is sending circular waves of light. Constancy of light speed (relative to the observer) is unthinkable. All of Lorentz Contraction must be reconsidered I believe.
Allow mw to rewrite previous post (26 Nov 12:41 AM) as follows.

An apparatus of MM experiment is working (in vacuum). Suppose that the number of waves existing on the light paths (diverged by half mirror) is the same always (to below decimal point. From the experimental result on interference fringes, this supposition will not be denied). There is an observer moving relative to the apparatus. To the observer, the number of waves is invariable also (it is an invariant). Therefore, if light speed (to the observer) is constant, Lorentz contraction must be denied.

nakayama
nakayama
Lorentz Contraction is said to be proposed to explain MM-X. Premise of MM-X is aether. Yes, aether exists. Inertial force will be one of evidences. However, in human scale, light does not follow aether frame. The measurement of c (done in vacuum) is one of evidences. Premise of MM-X was an illusion.

An observer is moving in a uniform linear motion relative to a light source that is sending circular waves of light. Constancy of light speed (relative to the observer) is unthinkable. All of Lorentz Contraction must be reconsidered I believe.
Allow me to rewrite again yesterday's post.

An apparatus of MM experiment is working (in vacuum). Suppose that there is an invariable difference 100.25 in the number of waves existing on the light paths (diverged by half mirror). To deny this supposition will be impossible because of the experimental result on interference fringes. There is an observer moving relative to the apparatus. To the observer, the number of waves is invariable also (it is an invariant). Therefore, if light speed (to the observer) is constant, Lorentz contraction must be denied.