Originally posted by: Cuchulainn
The (George Francis) Fitzgerald building Trinity College Dublin University
It would seem that Fitzgerald's work is important here.
Fitzgerald´s work indeed play an important role also in my theory. Also the Iris physicist Sir Joseph Larmor is brought more back into light. At first eye sight the Larmor transformation (the version he published in his 1900 book, I recommend also this book for anyone interested in physics) looks very different than the Lorentz transformation. This is mainly due to Larmor´s very original notation (and of course he could be original as he was the "first" to get consistent with experiment). Larmor is the first combining length contraction and time dilation and to get a mathematical theory consistent with the Michelson and Morley experiment.
When re-writing Larmors transformation into the notation form of Lorentz (that has become the standard notation used today) it looks at first eye sight identical to Lorentz, but it is not (but sill both transformations holds for the Michelson and Morley experiment). The original interpretation by Lorentz on his own transformation was closer to that of Larmor. Larmor gives credit to both Fitzgerald and Lorentz on length contrition that he uses in his transformation also.
In 1905 Lorentz got heavily influenced by Poincare that showed that the L factor in the Lorentz (1904) transformation always was equal to 1 (so from 1905 the L in the Lorentz transformation is gone (set to 1)). Lorentz got after this heavily influenced by Poincares thinking (which helped him, but if reading my book one will understand also was partly a mistake). The Poincare influenced Lorentz transformation is identical to the Einstein transformation. Einstein derived the transformation independently based on his own assumptions and claim he only knew of Lorentz work up to 1895. Poincare believed in the ether but believed it never could be detected motion against the ether. Einstein in 1905 simply rejected the ether, but several times after publications on GR claimed there had to be an aether, or what he called the new ether. The difference between the Poincare influenced Lorentz transformation and Einstein transformation is just that Poincare and Lorentz still believed in the ether, but that it not could be detected. Einstein simply rejected the ether and yes also assumed isotropic one-way speed of light for his clock synchronization. Poincare had suggested similar synchronization before, and is why someone call it Einstein-Poincare synchronization. Einstein's theory was much more extensive in the way he also derived E=Mc^2 as well as relativistic Doppler shift and more. Einstein was also the first to discuss time dilation in words. Larmor derived time dilation mathematically and mention it in a few sentences. The Larmor time dilation is different mathematical even if looking identical, there is a different in the input.
The Poincare influenced Lorentz transformation was published June 5 1905 while Einstein published his theory June 30 1905.
The Larmor transformation holds for experiments where everything is set up in the same frame, such as the Michelson and Morley experiment. The Poincare influenced Lorentz transformation (and the Einstein transformation that is identical to Lorentz mathematically) holds for any two frames. Still there is much more to it that is revealed in my book, I will write more on this also here, but later.
I am not the first that shows the Larmor transformation at first eye sight after re-writing the notation into Lorentz notation looks identical to the Lorentz transformation. Still I bring new insight in the Larmor transformation as well as considerably new insight into the Lorentz transformation. First off all I think Larmor should be given much more credit, many physics books today do not even mention Larmor anymore, they should. The Larmor transformation is right, but is incomplete, but he also did not use his transformation outside what he claimed it could do.
I present also a whole new set of length (space) and time transformations where Lorentz (Einstein) transformation is a ´special´case. Or more precisely I uncover a deeper layer underneath that also can be detected in experiments, but yes also the Lorentz transformation comes out from this deeper theory. The Lorentz transformation is mathematical correct and will be consistent with almost any (with a couple of important exemptions described in great detail in my book) experiment done with Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks as well as clocks synchronized by slow clock transportation, there is however another more fundamental way to synchronize clocks.