When it is about the "Lorentz transformations" I have in mind: There is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the ether. Hearing about "Einstein transformations" I would think: The notions of "really resting" and "really moving" are meaningless. Only relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Hearing abouit "Lorentz-Einstein transformations" I would have in mind the following statement [1]: "Once correctly stated the principle of SRT allow for a wide range of "theories" that differ from the standard SRT only for the in the chosen synchronization procedure, but are wholly equivalent to SRT in predicting empirical facts". even if the last namimg is not in use. I have found it in a single publication (AJP)(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I end with full respect for the two physicists and for all the answers in the spirit of "sine ira et studio.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Lorentz transformation, Einstein transformation,Lorentz-Einstein transformation

Loading...

Similar Threads - Lorentz transformation Einstein | Date |
---|---|

B Einstein’s Greatest Mistake? | May 21, 2016 |

Lorentz transformation And Einstein's Laws. | Jun 13, 2014 |

Lorentz, waves, Einstein and bodies: transformations +/- gamma | Mar 25, 2014 |

Concerning the 1920 Einstein Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation | May 6, 2012 |

Does Einstein implicitly proves himself and the Lorentz Transformation wrong? | Oct 7, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**