Re: Principle of equivalence

On Apr 18, 9:14 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, in the first place, Bryan, there is no way to know for certain
what the Lorentz equations say with regard to where a clock thrown
from a moving frame of reference will hit just by saying it was thrown
from the frame of reference.

"In the first place" you posted wrong or nonsensical statements on
what the Lorentz transform predicts. In the second place, I did the
math you challenged me to do, and showed the result for which you
asked. We're not in the first place anymore, nor the second. Now you
are changing the question because the theory you do not like turned
out to work in the first place, contrary to your reporting.

So if I say that a clock is thrown from
the moving frame of reference in the opposite direction to the motion
of the frame of reference at half the velocity of the frame of
reference, then does that clock hit in S at x=0?

What a mess. I assume you mean it is thrown from the train such
that in our frame of reference S its velocity is v/2, or in S'
its velocity is -v/2.

No, I do not think so.

Did anyone say it would in that case? If so, who?

 So how do you figure out where it hits in S using the Lorentz
equations?

The Lorentz transform expresses the S'coordinates of an event
as functions of the the S coordinates. In this case, we have
all the quantities relative to S, and you ask for "where it
hits in S". What's to transform?

If you want see the key bit of math showing that the Lorentz
transform supports the principle of equivalence, take the
transform's equations and solve them for x and t. The
transform expresses of x' and t' in terms of x and t; by
solving for x and t, you express them in terms of x' and t',
thus producing the inverse Lorentz transform.

--
--Bryan

No. The principle of equivalence states there is an equivalence
between uniform acceleration and gravitation - the principle you are
looking for is the principle of relativity.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... >> three regions which cannot be connected by a lorentz transform. ... Spacelike intervals can always be made simultaneous, so all observers ... Lorentz had to assume this in order to define a frame ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: LET
    ... >> motion away from the origin of the master frame K, ... > For the past decade or so around here LET has meant the "Lorentz Ether ... transform used is the Lorentz transform, ... If I interpret the transform to mean something like: Pixies bunch up ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
    ... Lorentz was saying, but I have never gone through the mathematics, ... reference of the sun or whatever source of light there is. ... measurements made in one frame of reference to those ... According to you, Michelson was not moving, Morley was not moving, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... from the frame of reference. ... what the Lorentz transform predicts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
    ... reference, just as it is in SR. ... all frame of reference. ... anisotropy wrt moving objects because when you combine 'true' velocities ... in Lorentz trnasforms .. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)