- 991
- 1
Is it correct to say that having the Lorentz-Einstein transformations in our hands we have also all the fundamental equations of special relativity?
sine ira et studio
sine ira et studio
Yes IMHO.Is it correct to say that having the Lorentz-Einstein transformations in our hands we have also all the fundamental equations of special relativity?
sine ira et studio
Is that meant to be globally? Isn't GR about local Lorentz invariance?Special relativity is about making the whole physics (locally) invariant under the Lorentz transformation.
I fully aggree with you. As I see from the answers I have received I should add to my riddle that I mean by Lorentz-Einstein transformation an equation which establishes a relationship between the space-time coordinates of the same event detected from two inertial reference frames in relative motion ensuring the invariance of the expression xx-ctt, no more and no less. It has nothing to do with the debate between the two theories.Yes IMHO.
While the onthology of Einstein's special relativity theory is different from Lorentz ether theories the numerical results are identical.
When two theories give exactly the same results it really becomes a "battle of religions" to argue which one is the right one.
Please let me know what do you mean by IMHO?Yes IMHO.
While the onthology of Einstein's special relativity theory is different from Lorentz ether theories the numerical results are identical.
When two theories give exactly the same results it really becomes a "battle of religions" to argue which one is the right one.
IMHO = In My Humble OpinionPlease let me know what do you mean by IMHO?
Thanks. When we speak about special relativity we all should start with IMHO.IMHO = In My Humble Opinion
I assume by "LET" you are referring to the Lorentz-Einstein Transformations? Are you familiar with how they are used? What are you talking about with an "arbitrary constant"? Clocks "slowing" is a trivial consequence of the LT.May I add an IMHO? Note that the LET is not general because an arbitrary constant has been omitted. That was OK in the 1905 paper because he was interested only in derivatives. Also I have not seen yet how slow clocks etc arise out of the LET.