Derivation of Lorentz Transformation

More
19 years 3 months ago #14429 by PhilJ
I really should stay out of this, since it is many decades since I studied the subject in school. However, it seems likely to me that absolute values were implicit in the description of what the transformation represented. I believe you are pulling a trick on us equivalent to the old change for $5 scam that has so often been played on naive store clerks. Shame on you, Thomas!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 3 months ago #13656 by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />I really should stay out of this, since it is many decades since I studied the subject in school. However, it seems likely to me that absolute values were implicit in the description of what the transformation represented. I believe you are pulling a trick on us equivalent to the old change for $5 scam that has so often been played on naive store clerks. Shame on you, Thomas!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, maybe you should stay out of this if you can't follow the simple maths here. The basic equations quoted are exactly those used at www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html for the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and I have not added or left out anything but merely drawn some conclusions regarding the mathematical consistency of those equations.



www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 3 months ago #13657 by rodschmidt
Replied by rodschmidt on topic Reply from Rod Schmidt
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Many people maintain that the Lorentz transformation is derived mathematically consistently and that there is therefore no way to challenge <b>SR</b> on internal consistency issues.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You meant, I think, <b>LR</b> ?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 3 months ago #13658 by rodschmidt
Replied by rodschmidt on topic Reply from Rod Schmidt
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(1) x-ct=0
...
In the same way, the propagation of a signal in the opposite direction yields
(3) x+ct=0
...
Let's subtract equation (1) from (3<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But...these are not the same x! One is the position of the photon going forward, the other is the position of the OTHER photon which is going backward.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 3 months ago #14132 by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rodschmidt</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Many people maintain that the Lorentz transformation is derived mathematically consistently and that there is therefore no way to challenge <b>SR</b> on internal consistency issues.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You meant, I think, <b>LR</b> ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No I meant SR (the derivation at www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html is actually by Einstein himself (from his book 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory')).



www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 3 months ago #14133 by Thomas
Replied by Thomas on topic Reply from Thomas Smid
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rodschmidt</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(1) x-ct=0
...
In the same way, the propagation of a signal in the opposite direction yields
(3) x+ct=0
...
Let's subtract equation (1) from (3<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But...these are not the same x! One is the position of the photon going forward, the other is the position of the OTHER photon which is going backward.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, that's exactly the point of Einstein's derivation. Otherwise it would not 'work'.



www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.409 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum