Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition,
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 30 Jul 2008 05:36:04 -0700
The TimeLord says...
Am Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:36:33 -0700 schrieb Shubee <e.Shubee@xxxxxxxxx> in
42be138c-a4fe-4cad-bcbc-c7ec0402e61a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in
sci.physics.relativity:
It's not clear to me why the Lorentz transformation can't be reduced to
the Galilean transformation by resetting clocks, rescaling distance
measures and fiddling with clock rates according to the recipe on page
11 of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf and
equations (48) to (58).
How do you answer this riddle?
Shubee
Easy. The Lorentz transformation
x' = gamma (x - v t)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = gamma (t - v x / c^2)
is not the same as the Galilean transformation
x' = x - v t
y' = y
y' = z
t' = t
Simple inspection reveals that.
What Shubee is saying is that whether you have Galilean transform
or Lorentz transform relating two frames depends on how clocks
are synchronized in those frames. However, the *same* synchronization
procedure, slow clock transport, leads to the Galilean transform
if Newtonian physics is correct and leads to the Lorentz transform
if Special Relativity is correct.
Slow clock transport means that you synchronize distant clocks
by bringing all clocks together in one spot and setting them to
the same time. Then you slowly move the clocks to their final
location.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition,
- From: The TimeLord
- Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition,
- Prev by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Next by Date: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
- Previous by thread: Is there length contraction in SRT, uncle Ben?
- Next by thread: Re: Is This a Subtle but Completely Legitimate Redefinition,
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
