
#73
Feb1412, 12:47 AM

P: 359





#74
Feb1412, 01:00 AM

P: 67

Time dilation and Lorentz contraction lack the completeness of Einstein's postulates. They cannot be used as postulates to derive the RoS, constant speed of light, etc. Regards 



#75
Feb1412, 01:13 AM

P: 3,178

[QUOTE=Naty1;3762411] [..]




#76
Feb1412, 01:19 AM

P: 359

You say that Length contraction, time dilation and RoS are all consequences of the Lorentz transformations; but Lorentzian relativity uses the same transformations doesn't it? If so, then RoS is not necessarily a consequence of the Lorentz transformations, because RoS is not a part of Lorentzian relativity, which includes length contraction and clock retardation, due to mechanical effects; clock retardation appears to be almost the exact same thing as time dilation except for a different metaphysical explanation. The differences appear to be:  time dilation in Einseinian relativity; but mechanical retardation of a clock in Lorentzian  RoS in Einsteinian relativity; absolute relativity in Lorentzian. There appears to be some correlation between time dilation and RoS, is that a fair assessment? 



#77
Feb1412, 01:21 AM

P: 3,178





#78
Feb1412, 01:34 AM

P: 67





#79
Feb1412, 01:35 AM

P: 359





#80
Feb1412, 01:41 AM

P: 359





#81
Feb1412, 02:04 AM

P: 67

 Regards 



#82
Feb1412, 02:14 AM

P: 3,178





#83
Feb1412, 02:42 AM

P: 67

1. the lorentz contraction 2. time dilation 3. and RoS (as shown in post 42) . Again, see post 42. 



#84
Feb1412, 03:10 AM

P: 3,178

ADDENDUM: Perhaps you meant with " remained", the method of slow clock transport. Then my last remark doesn't apply. Instead, the clarifications of PAllen apply: slow clock transport is a way to naturally approximate the same outcome as is achieved with the PoincareEinstein synchronization. And it illustrates in which way time dilation and relativity of simultaneity are not fully independent in SR. However, this will hardly be possible to understand without first learning SR; and we can't do that for you. 



#85
Feb1412, 04:30 AM

P: 359

I appreciate people taking the time to post detailed replies, but because of my lack of a scientific or mathematic background, I am not always able to make the logical connections between points that some people might think is obvious  for example, DaleSpams nonLorentzian transformation example, which didn't pertain to Einsteinian relativity, when I was working on the assumption that it was Lorentzian transformations, under Einsteinian relativity, that we were talking about. Unfortunately, in such instances, unless it is spelled out for me, I can't see the logical connection between the two. the 1905 Paper I did indeed read, and understand, the introduction to the paper you posted; but I'm still unsure as to how DaleSpams example relates to it; it is more the maths used by Dalespam that I don't understand than the introduction to the paper, I would say. If it would be possible to proceed slowly on the basis of Einstein's definition of simultaneity in that paper, I can give my understanding and if everyone hasn't put me on ignore by then, maybe, just maybe, someone can point out where it is I'm going wrong. 



#86
Feb1412, 04:41 AM

P: 359





#87
Feb1412, 04:51 AM

P: 359





#88
Feb1412, 06:20 AM

Mentor
P: 16,485

IF your assertion were correct, then all transforms which included LC and TD would automatically also include RoS and would therefore be equivalent to the Lorentz transform. I have provided counter examples which demonstrate that there are transforms (which are not the Lorentz transform) which have TD and LC but not RoS and vice versa. The connection is that, by considering LC and TD but neglecting RoS, you are unwittingly using one of these alternate transforms, instead of the Lorentz transforms. Thus you are reaching incorrect conclusions. Is that clear? 



#89
Feb1412, 08:51 AM

P: 3,178





#90
Feb1412, 08:57 AM

P: 152

1. There is no way to measure the oneway speed of light, one can only measure the two way speed of light. 2. The two way speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. Length contraction and time dilation is then used to explain how the two way speed of light is the same for all observers. That is all there is to it. Yes in LET you assume a universal preferred frame and there is no "relativity of simultaneity". "Relavity of simultaneity" occurs when you decide that all inertial observers should get the same result when they measure the speed of light. It has nothing to do with time dilation per se. Yes LET uses the same formulas for time dilation and length contraction but it does not state that the speed of light is the same in all inertial systems and thus has no need for relativity of simultaneity. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
How Is The Relativity Of Simultaneity Consistent With Physics And Relativity  Special & General Relativity  47  
relativity simultaneity  Introductory Physics Homework  1  
Relativity of simultaneity  Special & General Relativity  10  
Relativity of Simultaneity  Special & General Relativity  16  
Relativity of Simultaneity  Special & General Relativity  25 