Talk:Lorentz transformation
|
|
The below, added to the History section, is confusing:
c is then identified to the propagation speed of electromagnetic radiation in vacuum.
We must merge this with Lorentz transformation equations
Brute-force merged: now the equations need thorough checking, because they are subtly different in each sub-version... -- The Anome 00:04, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"Proper foundation for its application" ... I'd love to watch a debate between the author and this bunch (http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html) who seem to be staking their careers on Lorentz being right after all: "The Einstein assumptions leading to the Special and General Theory of Relativity are shown to be falsified by the extensive experimental data. Contrary to the Einstein assumptions absolute motion is consistent with relativistic effects, which are caused by actual dynamical effects of absolute motion through the quantum foam, so that it is Lorentzian relativity that is seen to be essentially correct." I suggest "proper foundation" is not NPOV; but WP has been sufficiently abusive to me I'm doing no more than to leave this note. -- fmr Kwantus
Lorentz Transformation is Flawed
The Lorentz transformation is actually nothing but a 'cheated' Galilei Transformation: it uses a vectorial velocity addition for light signals (which contradicts the invariance of the speed of light) and then this error is being 'rectified' by changing the original length and time units (see my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm for more).
- In order to understand the interpretation of the invariance of the speed of light, behold the eigenvectors of the Lorentz transformation.
- 217.81.157.237 20:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In your website page illustrated example your hypothesis and conclusion seem to be one and the same: the invariance of the speed of light. Then any "demonstration" would be redundant (i.e. already in the hypothesis). The whole discussion about the Lorentz transformation is the physical validation or invalidation of his mathematical expression of t' in relation to t. If possible please post relevant material of how he arrived at the proposed equation.--Lucian 20:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I fail to understand how that website proves anything. Perhaps the original poster should read up on the Lorentz group to learn how the Lorentz transformation isn't a 'cheated' Galilean transformation, but rather an extension of rotations. The most intuitive way to understand the derivation of Lorentz transformations is to see it as finding a transformation that preserves c (rotations) and extending that in a really simple way, rather than pulling a new transformation out of thin air, which is usually how it's presented to freshmen undergrads). --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)