The person who told you that there is no known MECHANISM for the Lorentz transformation and time dilation told you the truth.
But physics is a black box. Do you really expect to learn universe engineering from physicists and be able to understand everything, from a few childish principles?
If...
I'll make this a question
How are you going to evade the equation for proper time in a gravitational field being directly comparable with the topologically distinguished, universally applicable background time that characterizes spatially compact spacetime? Take the spacetime cylinder for...
My links to spatially compact spacetimes are not limited to those that are flat. My other thread, The Black Hole in a Spatially Compact Spacetime, opens with this quote:
A link to that paper, which contains the foregoing statement, is listed in my references.
My question about asymmetric...
The last paragraph of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0006/0006039.pdf states this conclusion:
See these references also:
http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79...
The paper, "On the Twin Paradox in a Universe with a Compact Dimension" presents a very clear answer to your question:
"We consider the twin paradox of special relativity in a universe with a compact spatial dimension. Such topology allows two twin observers to remain inertial yet meet...
You have probably noticed that the full force of Poincaré's relativity principle isn't necessary to derive the Lorentz transformation and the essence of special relativity:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/...
Pete,
I'm not aware of anyone, including Einstein, who successfully defined the meaning of "aether" so that it would result in definite, quantifiable predictions. Aether (the poster) doesn't even want to extend the current range of SR's quantifiable predictions. Aether wants a new theory that...
Pete, your comments are totally irrelevant. The title of this thread is "Relativity without the aether: pseudoscience?" The first sentence on page one says, "Special relativity (SR) and Lorentz ether theory (LET) are empirically equivalent systems for interpreting local Lorentz symmetry."
I...
In a Newtonian universe
Or, more simply, in a Newtonian universe, clocks can be reset by a fixed amount in every moving frame such that
x' = x-vt
t' = (t - vx/s^2)/(1-v^2/s^2)
where s' = (s^2-v^2)/s is the speed of sound in the frame that moves at speed v wrt the atmosphere.
A violation of Lorentz invariance wouldn't prove that an aether exists. There are trivial models of spacetime where an absolute frame of reference exists without a material aether fluid.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/e19ac8581a6148f2
It's not that easy. Clocks can be...
Relativists don't disallow arbitrary clock synchronizations
I gave three links to derivations of SR that don't use the constancy of light postulate. Doesn't that prove that both axioms, including yours, are not required?
Why aren't you holding out the option of rejecting both? Or do you enjoy...
If your only point is that every inertial observer in SR can choose absolute frame coordinates, then I have no objection to that. If you insist on the axiom that says that there is only one frame that can use absolute frame coordinates, then I object. I object to any axiom that has no useful...
I thought you understood SR
The one-way speed of light is the same when computed by the Lorentz transformation or by absolute frame coordinates. Here's the experiment.
In an arbitrary frame of reference, start with two synchronized clocks side-by-side and slowly transport one of them to any...
No. Actually, they like that method because of the arbitrariness of it. They will quickly point out an explicit assumption in your approach. You're going to end up assuming that light speed from A to B is equal to light speed from B to A. It's better to do an ultraslow clock transport instead.