http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29/Trouton_Rankine.pdf

What say you?

From Wikipedia:

"The famous Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887 showed that the then accepted aether theory needed to be modified. FitzGerald and Lorentz, independent of each other proposed a length contraction of the experimental apparatus in the direction of motion (with respect to the Luminiferous aether) that would explain the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment. Trouton made several experiments seeking for a measureable effect of this contraction in the lab frame (the inertial frame of reference of an observer co-moving with the experimental apparatus). He made several attempts with Henry R. Noble in the Trouton–Noble experiments and later in 1908 with Rankine in the Trouton–Rankine experiment.

By 1908 however, the current theories of electrodynamics at the time, both Lorentz ether theory and Special Relativity which did not include an aether, both predicted that the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction is not measurable in a co-moving frame. Even before the modern version of Lorentz ether theory finalized by Poincaré in 1906, Lorentz advocated an immovable pervading aether which he felt was the correct frame to work out Maxwell's equations in. Trouton instead did the calculations using his own interpretation of electrodynamics, calculating the length contraction according to the velocity of the experimental apparatus in the aether frame, but then calculating the electrodynamics by applying Maxwell's equations and Ohm's law in the lab frame. According to Trouton's view of electrodynamics, the calculations then predicted a measurable effect of the length contraction in the lab frame.

Trouton, together with A. O. Rankine, set out to verify this in 1908 by attempting to measure the change of the resistance of a coil as they changed its orientation to the "aether velocity" (the velocity of the lab through the luminiferous aether). This was done by putting four identical such coils in a Wheatstone bridge configuration which allowed them to precisely measure any change in resistance. The circuit was then rotated through 90 degrees about its axis as the resistance was measured. Because the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction is only in the direction of motion, from the point of view of the "Aether frame" the length of the coils depended on their angle with respect to their Aether velocity. Trouton and Rankine therefore believed that the resistance as measured in the rest frame of the experiment should change as the device was rotated. However their careful measurements showed no detectable change in resistance.[1] This suggested that if the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction existed, it was not measurable in the rest frame of the object.

A similar experiment was performed several times by Chase and Tomaschek at a higher precision, but with the same results"

cinci: Messers Trouton and Rankine misinterpreted relativity and tried to measure the contraction in the moving frame where relativity says it can't be measured....and it couldn't. So rather than showing relativity was wrong, they showed it was correct.

By the way, if you want a bunch of other nonsense about how relativity is wrong, go to the mrelativity site. The gentleman who runs it has a lot in common with other anti-relativists; that is, he won't answer any questions either. And he's pretty good at making condescending remarks about anyone who questions him. You could imporve your insults by studying him but your science would go even further down hill.
*******************************
****************************

cinci says: Messers Trouton and Rankine misinterpreted relativity and tried to measure the contraction in the moving frame where relativity says it can't be measured....and it couldn't. So rather than showing relativity was wrong, they showed it was correct.

I would say that is a pretty good trick for a theory to pull off. It makes predictions regarding effects that can't be measured or verified in any way and the absense of the predicted effect verifies the theory. Cincirob illogic reaches new heights of absurdity.

cinci says: Messers Trouton and Rankine misinterpreted relativity and tried to measure the contraction in the moving frame where relativity says it can't be measured....and it couldn't. So rather than showing relativity was wrong, they showed it was correct.

Harry: I would say that is a pretty good trick for a theory to pull off. It makes predictions regarding effects that can't be measured or verified in any way and the absense of the predicted effect verifies the theory. Cincirob illogic reaches new heights of absurdity.

cinci: Just one more proof that you don't have a clue as to what relativity says. That being the case you're hardly in a position to critique it. Even the least knowledgeable folks know that the time dilation, length contraction, and mass increas phenomena are observerd in relatively moving frames and not in your own frame. So, no Harry, it's not a trick at all, just something else you apparently don't know.
******************

cinci: "Just one more proof that you don't have a clue as to what relativity says. That being the case you're hardly in a position to critique it. [Even the least knowledgeable folks know that the time dilation, length contraction, and mass increas phenomena are observerd in relatively moving frames and not in your own frame.] So, no Harry, it's not a trick at all, just something else you apparently don't know."

That being true Cinci, would make you one of the "least knowledgeable folks", I'm OK with that also.

bob s

Cinci is plenty knowledgeable. He has most of the pieces, He just forces them to fit. When shown the gaps, he thinks its s'posed ta be that way.

Curt: Cinci is plenty knowledgeable. He has most of the pieces, He just forces them to fit. When shown the gaps, he thinks its s'posed ta be that way.

cinci: When you find a gap, let me know.
***************************

Just hold it up to the light.

What gap are you claiming?

That time dilation doesn't fit your view of reality?


Now doesn't exist except as an abstraction of your motion through time.


That length contraction doesn't make sense to you?


Why doesn't it?



I've asked why these views are phrased this way, and all I get is "because it's ridiculous".

It's just as ridiculous to me to see it stated like that, so again, what is the gap you say you've exposed?