Tony2018 Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) But Einstein told us that x=0, then Who can help me explain where he was wrong? I am in a perplexity. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113238-whether-the-special-theory-of-relativity-needs-space-time/ Edited February 5, 2018 by Tony2018
beecee Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Tony2018 said: But Einstein told us that x=0, then Who can help me explain where he was wrong? I am in a perplexity. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113238-whether-the-special-theory-of-relativity-needs-space-time/ Just a thought from a lay person.....SR is a special case or subset of GR...GR requires spacetime. Why? Simply put spacetime in GR is gravity, as gravitation is simply described as the curvature/warping/twisting of said spacetime. Plus of course both SR and GR have been thoroughly tested and passed with flying colours. I would also add that spacetime is also the unified multi-dimensional framework within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is constant or invariant, i.e. it does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers. Edited February 5, 2018 by beecee
Tony2018 Posted February 5, 2018 Author Posted February 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, beecee said: Just a thought from a lay person.....SR is a special case or subset of GR...GR requires spacetime. Why? Simply put spacetime in GR is gravity, as gravitation is simply described as the curvature/warping/twisting of said spacetime. Plus of course both SR and GR have been thoroughly tested and passed with flying colours. But his Lorenz derivation looks very reasonable. His logical reasoning is also more rigorous. I'm a rookie. I may see only fur.
beecee Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Tony2018 said: But his Lorenz derivation looks very reasonable. His logical reasoning is also more rigorous. I'm a rookie. I may see only fur. I have made an addition in case you missed it. Otherwise, I'll let the experts give a more indepth answer and reasoning. Edited February 5, 2018 by beecee
Tony2018 Posted February 5, 2018 Author Posted February 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, beecee said: I have made an addition in case you missed it. Otherwise, I'll let the experts give a more indepth answer and reasoning. Your description is very abstract. Do you have any specific examples and rigorous mathematical derivation like the Lorenz transformation? Can you point out where his Lorenz derivation is wrong? It looks very correct.
Strange Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 I don't think there is anything wrong in that math. (If so, I have missed it.) But he insists that you can only derive that if you establish an absolute reference frame to start with. Which is not true. He appears to derive the Lorentz transform with reference to only relative motion to A and B first, and then says it can't be done without an absolute frame. Which doesn't make much sense. But I haven't tried to wade through all his (slightly incoherent) arguments yet.
beecee Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Tony2018 said: Your description is very abstract. Do you have any specific examples and rigorous mathematical derivation like the Lorenz transformation? Can you point out where his Lorenz derivation is wrong? Did you miss the part where I said I am a lay person and was offering my thoughts on the subject? Did you also fail to read his closed thread, the professional answers he received there, despite his rather arrogant style and demanding his made up rules be adhered to?
Tony2018 Posted February 5, 2018 Author Posted February 5, 2018 14 minutes ago, Strange said: I don't think there is anything wrong in that math. (If so, I have missed it.) But he insists that you can only derive that if you establish an absolute reference frame to start with. Which is not true. He appears to derive the Lorentz transform with reference to only relative motion to A and B first, and then says it can't be done without an absolute frame. Which doesn't make much sense. But I haven't tried to wade through all his (slightly incoherent) arguments yet. I read his article more carefully. 1. his logic should be to compare A and B in space, and it is necessary to have the participation of C, otherwise the state of A and B can not be clearly stated. Space-time is a very suitable C. At least it's logically reasonable. 2. from his analysis of Lorenz transformation, the implied reference point O, O', is also clear. 3. the relationship between t and t' that he derives is different from that of Einstein. Are they all right? 4. according to his derivation, A and B refer to each other, and the conclusions are different.
Strange Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, Tony2018 said: his logic should be to compare A and B in space, and it is necessary to have the participation of C, otherwise the state of A and B can not be clearly stated. Space-time is a very suitable C. At least it's logically reasonable. It is logically wrong. As shown by Galileo several hundred years ago. Not sure why you are incapable of understanding this. [p.s. reported as sock puppet.] 1
Tony2018 Posted February 5, 2018 Author Posted February 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, Strange said: It is logically wrong. As shown by Galileo several hundred years ago. Not sure why you are incapable of understanding this. [p.s. reported as sock puppet.] Do you mean this? Galileo said that without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary. I can also understand this.
Strange Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 Then you should be able to understand that A can consider themselves stationary and B as moving. Or B can consider themselves stationary and A as moving. The two cases are exactly equivalent. You do not need any third frame of reference to derive or use the Lorentz transform between A and B. A will see B's clocks as running slower. And B will see A's clocks as running slower. (By exactly the same amount.) You can introduce an arbitrary C (and D, E ... K ... M ... Z ...) moving relative to both A and B, but that doesn't change the relationship between A and B.
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 5, 2018 Posted February 5, 2018 ! Moderator Note The OP has been banned as a sock puppet, so we will leave this here. 1
Recommended Posts