Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 11/08/04
- Next message: RP: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Previous message: kenseto: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:46:51 -0500
John Kennaugh wrote:
>
> That is because Lorentz assumed there was an ether so that light speed
> was still an exception to the rule. He explained away the MMX result by
> assuming that ponderable matter and the ether interact and his
> transforms are simply mathematical descriptions of that interaction.
> Maybe you have some alternative physical interpretation of what they
> represent.
The composition of velocities (NOT addition) holds in SR where there is
no assumption of aether. The Lorentz Tranform is gotten from two
postulates.
1. the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames
2. the principle of relativity.
No aether is assumed at all.
Galilean invariance is empirically incorrect.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: RP: "Re: Is Einstein's Principle of Equivalence true?"
- Previous message: kenseto: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|