Re: The truth about the Lorentz Transformation.

Am Mittwoch000025, 25.09.2024 um 13:43 schrieb Python:

Le 25/09/2024 à 13:26, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.09.2024 o 13:05, Python pisze:

Le 25/09/2024 à 12:59, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

W dniu 25.09.2024 o 10:33, Python pisze:

Le 25/09/2024 à 07:03, Thomas Heger a écrit :

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.

>
You read what? Where?

>
Oh, Poincare could be fooled enough to
support SR - too bad for him. But he
wrote very clearly what he thinks of
rejecting Euclidean geometry (which
[Einstein] did later in [snip prof.]

>
No he didn't.

>
Yes, he did.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf
He wrote clearly enough for anyone able to read.
Even if not clearly enough for you

I meant Einstein didn't reject Euclidean Geometry.
 I thought it was clear enough for anyone able to read.
 

Sure, Einstein didn't.
SRT is actually based on Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics.
This is so, because Einstein actually wrote that.
BUT: Euclidean geometry was wrong in this context of (SRT) relativity, because Euclidiean space is based on the idea of coordinates without a dependency on time.
Iow: if you have some remote event on -say- the x-axis of Euclidian space, this is simultaneaous, if a connecting signal would need no time to reach that point.
Euclidean space is therefore 'timeless'.
But the space of SRT is NOT independent of time.
To show this was the very purpose of SRT!
To refer to Euclidean space was therefor wrong in SRT.
TH