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] |
Pentcho Valev wrote:inconsistent premises.
Some time ago I showed that special relativity is based on
thermodynamics, .............. (Snip)Now I am giving another example. In
list. I was curious
I've been away for a while and am catching up on postings to the
about one of your previous postings related to the statement above.I assumed there
would be some responses, but for some reason I can't find a threadthat continues your
subject heading "a Relativity Problem". I'm a little hesitant toreply, because I find
all the treads related to your postings end after one response. Ihope I'm not about
to post something that no one else on the list is interested in.separate it by a dashed
Anyway - your previous post stated (I'll put it in quotes and
line since it runs a few paragraphs)derivation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"The following problem could be given to students. For the
of Lorentz transformations, Einstein introducedeasy
(A) x' = 0 <-> x = vt
He should have introduced, or WE now introduce, in accordance with
the special relativity principle, a premise symmetrical to (A):
(B) x = 0 <-> x' = -vt'
Einstein also introduced, for a beam moving along the x-axis,
(C) x = ct <-> x' = ct'
Now the problem is that (A), (B) and (C) are incompatible. (A) and
(C) are compatible and lead to Lorentz transformations but it is
to see that one cannot deduce (B) from Lorentz transformations. (A)-----
and (B) are also compatible and lead to transformations different
from Lorentz transformations. (B) and (C) are also compatible and
lead to transformations insignificantly different from Lorentz
transformations. So, in order to be able to proceed, we must declare
either (A) or (B) or (C) as false. Which one is false?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
transformations. If I take
You say (A) and (C) are compatible and lead to the Lorentz
one of those transformations, namely
x = (x' + vt')/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and substitute x' = -vt', I get x=0, which is your statement (B).
transformations,
In like manner, Starting with (B) and (C) and applying the Lorentz
(A) appears as a result. Also, (C) itself is just a trivial resultof applying the
same transformations. What's always surprising is how easily thestandard Lorentz
transformations tie (A), (B), and (C) together so well.
of opinion as to
From past discussions on this list, I know there are differences
whether (A), (B) and (C) all by themselves are sufficient toproduce the Lorentz
transformations, but the transformations (once proposed) certainlymake (A), (B) and
(C) consistent.conservative bulk dielectric
Also, while I'm catching up, I don't quite follow why non-
effects in the capacitor problem require a revision of thefundamentals of electricity
and magnetism. Non-conservative tidal effects between gravitatingobjects don't demand
a revision of the conservative gravitational force - or a rejectionof the Second Law
of thermodynamics.