Re: The truth about the Lorentz Transformation.

On 25-Sept-24 1:03 pm, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Sonntag000022, 22.09.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Sylvia Else:

On 17-Sept-24 11:16 am, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

In reality, the LT is the difference in time taken for the transverse
and longitudinal beams.
Like with a river current, the longitudinal motion will be delayed more
than the transverse.
This is the difference that should have been detected by the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
As with water that is not flowing, we don't need these equations without
an ether.
Since relativity does not involve an ether, applying the Lorentz
Transformation in this context is nonsensical.

>
If you look for equations that describe a universe in which all observers measure the same speed for light, then you arrive at the Lorentz transformation. This is why Einstein and Lorentz ended up in the same place - they both started with the same premise.

 As far as I can tell, the question was not the speed of light, but 'form invariance' between coordinate systems in motion, which motivated Voigt and Poincare to develop an early form of SRT.
 This was taken by Hendrik Lorentz, who developed on that foundation something, which Poincare named 'Lorentz transform'.
 And I have read, that Poincare didn't like that and also not Einstein's SRT.
 TH

One can formulate the problem in different ways, and that can lead to different approaches to finding a solution.
But the underlying issue was the same - the measured speed of light is independent of the motion of the person doing the measuring. Any analysis that correctly describes that will lead to the Lorentz transformation, regardless of philosophical notions about what's happening behind the scenes.
Sylvia.