DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS?
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Jeckyl wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
t...
Jeckyl wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:53:48 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:
The "Lorentzian form of relativity", reduced to its essentials,
is:
A) there is a unique inertial frame in which the ether is at rest
Ok
B) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to those of the
ether frame by a Lorentz transform
Similarly reduced to its essentials, SR is:
C) any inertial frame's coordinates are related to any other
inertial
frame's coordinates by a Lorentz transform
One can easily show mathematically that A+B imply C.
Hang on .. let me see
If we have three objects at rest in three inertial FoR A,B,C and we
have
(say) that A is at rest relative to the 'ether' FoR, B is moving at
velocity v relative to A, and C is moving at 2v relative to A. So
according to premise A) and B) above, an object A has no length
contraction or time dilation (because it is stationary in the ether
frame), object B has some, and object C has more. So an observer in
FoR
B would see objects in A as expanded and objects in C as contracted.
This is not true, basically because "length contraction" and "time
dilation" are not the entire story, and there is also "relativity of
simultaneity", and all 3 interrelate with each other.
I understand all that in terms of Lorentz transforms as part of SR ..
You don't.
I do .. But I have serious doubt about your understanding, however.
|