The discussion centers on the relationship between Lorentz invariance and Einstein's clock synchronization convention within the framework of special relativity (SR). Participants explore the implications of Lorentz transformations, the nature of conformal transformations, and the operational aspects of clock synchronization in inertial frames.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between Lorentz invariance and Einstein's synchronization convention. Multiple competing views are presented, particularly regarding the implications of conformal transformations and their compatibility with the principles of special relativity.
Limitations include varying interpretations of the implications of different transformation groups, the operational definitions of simultaneity, and the specific conditions under which different synchronization methods may apply.
I believe it simply shows that in the aforementioned condition Einstein's synchronization convention is consistent (i.e. 'simultaneous' according it defines actually an 'equivalence class').PeroK said:What does that achieve? That's hardly worth a paper.
Well, if Weyl proved that in 1923, then it's a waste of time now.cianfa72 said:I believe it simply shows that in the aforementioned condition Einstein's synchronization convention is consistent (i.e. 'simultaneous' according it defines actually an 'equivalence class of events').
In MINUL pag 10 they claim to remove an assumption (namely ##z=0##) Weyl employed to show that Einstein's synchronization convention is consistent. In section 4 they show that from ##2c \Rightarrow (z=0)##. Hence since from ##L/c## follows ##2c## then they give a proof of ##L/c \Rightarrow 1c## (note that the latter is actually a two folded statement).PeroK said:In any case, it's clear if you read the paper that they believe they have proved way more than that.