Re: The truth about the Lorentz Transformation.

Le 20/09/2024 à 13:48, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

 So are "2+2=4"  "7x3=21", poor halfbrain.
The topic of the thread is not SR, and
Lorentz has invented his equations for
another theory.

Poincaré-Lorentz transformations do not pose any particular problems.
They came out of the brain of the French mathematician to try to explain the negativity of the Michelson and Morley experiment.
Indeed, if we take the speed of light in a vacuum, and add or subtract the speed of the Earth in space, there should be, depending on the position of the interferometer arms, and at six-month intervals,
very significant variations in the interference fringes.
However, nothing happens.
As if the Earth were at rest in an absolute vacuum, which seems absurd.
Physicists have correctly solved the problem by assuming that our idea of ​​"speed in absolute space" was an idea given a priori, and that in relativity, it had no meaning.
What would this absolute frame of reference be, where things could exist at absolute rest?
It does not exist, and everything exists "as a function of "something else" and according to a relative speed.
It took me many years to find myself (that is to say really by myself, and not like the idiot who just repeats them without understanding them) the Poincaré transformations.
I don't think they can be discussed.
Many things can be discussed, it's true.
But not that.
I recall the Poincaré formulas given in positive form (which I also do) and in Hachel notation:
x'=(x+Vo.To)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
y'=y
z'=z
To'=(To+x.Vo/c²)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
t'=t
These five coordinates are labels. They transpose, and vice versa by changing the sign that gives the reciprocal equation in perfect mathematics) the real world of an object in what the same object crossing it at speed Vo would perceive.
Poincaré's physics and mathematics are entirely correct.
R.H.