Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS

On Jun 8, 9:39 pm, Alen <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:01 am, Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 7, 7:27 am, Alen <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But I ask: how can it be claimed that the physical reality is
explained, if it is described by, as it were, transcendent, static
equations, which make no mention of the necessary dynamics
intrinsic to the actual reality?

Alen,

I'll try to answer this the best I can with the budding understanding
I have.

The static equations (rotation of coordinates in an underlying space-
time manifold) are indistinguishable from the dynamical
transformations. This equivalence is due the properties of the
parallel transport of 3-space through time in the dynamical model.

Yes, I agree with that, and what I said doesn't deny it. What
I meant was that the dynamical reality doesn't make it clear
whether or not the static rotation model really exists. That is,
the dynamical reality also allows the possibility of some other
model. I have argued that another model is necessary because
I believe that it can be shown that the rotation model accepted
now for a century is not correct.

You have done no such thing.


Alen


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
    ... Uh, reality disagrees with you. ... I will assume here that if, in the transformation equations, the ... which make no mention of the necessary dynamics ... They are not manifestly a rotation, and could, therefore, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: THE PHYSICAL TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
    ... which make no mention of the necessary dynamics ... I meant was that the dynamical reality doesn't make it clear ... I believe that it can be shown that the rotation model accepted ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading