Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: The fallacy of affirming the consequent



On 04/10/2003 04:43 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Let me make a suggestion. In the absence of additional ad hoc premises, the
postulate of the constancy of the speed of light (PCSL) is a corollary of Lorentz
equations, but the opposite is not true - Lorentz equations are NOT a corollary of
PCSL (combined with the principle of special relativity).

The suggested statement is false. In this
version, unlike previous versions, the falsity
is in the first half, not the second half of
the statement.

The issue has to do with "additional ad hoc
premises". Additional premises are needed to
make the connection (in _either_ direction)
between speed of light and Lorentz transformation.
Whether these premises are "ad hoc" is a matter
of taste.

De gustibus non disputandum.

The logic issue is settled. Additional premises
are necessary. This is trivial. This is the
end of a blind alley.

If one wants to pursue the more general question
of the logical foundations of relativity, one may
a) Show that the Lorentz equations and the speed
of light are consistent with each other and with
conventional physics. This is the usual approach.
b) Show that the Lorentz equations are rigorously
the consequence of certain axioms. This is quite
difficult, because it would be predicated on an
axiomatic derivation of a great deal of classical
physics.
c) Give a counterexample, such as a self-consistent
system where the speed of light is constant but
the Lorentz equations do not hold.