Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 I generally am referring to SR in terms of the "geometrical" interpretation developed by Minkowski (which has itself been modified since 1908). Well, except that I'm really not most of the time. For many decades the pure Minkowskian view implied that time dilation and length contraction were mere "illusions" with no basis in physical reality. But, with the advent of modern technology and the discovery that time dilation is an actual physical reality, SR adherents were forced to retreat from this (then) mainstream view. What's left is really just a bastardized concoction which is even more self-contradictory than it started out as. Quote
alright1234 Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Special relativity is based on Einstein and Lorentz papers. You cannot separate Einstein and Lorentz from SR using Minkowski. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity Edited March 21, 2019 by alright1234 Quote
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Special relativity is based on Einstein and Lorentz papers. You cannot separate Einstein and Lorentz from SR using Minkowski. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity Well, I'm aware of the the difference between SR and LR. Is there something you wish to discuss about SR? Your earlier post said that SR was all about the ether (or something like that). As a historical matter that's involved, sure, but it's really irrelevant to modern neo-lorentian relativity, which I generally just refer to as a PFT (i.e., a preferred frame theory, of which there are several). Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote
alright1234 Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 There is no essential difference between Lorentz's theory and Einstein SR. What is the purpose of SR? Quote
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) There is no essential difference between Lorentz's theory and Einstein SR. What is the purpose of SR? I disagree. Although they share the same math (the lorentz transforms) and hence predict the same outcome in some cases, they are far from being identical theories. As far as the "purpose" of SR goes, I see none, apart from Einstein's attempt to salvage the cherished notion of the "principle of relativity" and reconcile it with Maxwell's equations. And to simplify mathematical calculations, which had great appeal to mathematicians. I am critical of SR, and my criticisms have been expressed throughout this thread. Do you have anything to add to, dispute, or question about any of the posts I've made? Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote
alright1234 Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 In Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905), is Einstein is justifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light? Einstein2 , Albert. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Annalen der Physik. 17:891-921. 1905. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Also, what is the definition of a theory? Quote
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 In Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (1905), is Einstein is justifying Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light? Einstein2 , Albert. On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Annalen der Physik. 17:891-921. 1905. https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Also, what is the definition of a theory? In this case the "theory" starts with two basic postulate, and deduces things from there. As far as "justifying Maxwell equations," that's not a question I'm interested in. Quote
alright1234 Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) My Dear and beloved friend Moronium, A theory is a unsubstantiated guess. Lorentz theory and Einstein theory of SR are based on Maxwell's theory. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is based on Maxwell's equations that are derived using Faraday's induction effect yet Faraday's induction effect is not luminous. Is this why you are not interested in Maxwell's equations? HA Ha Thank you Edited March 21, 2019 by alright1234 Quote
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) Is this why you are not interested in Maxwell's equations? HA Ha Einstein took the "truth" of Maxwell's equations for granted. He did not undertake SR to "justify" them. He posited his theory for other reasons, as I've already stated. SR says nothing about Maxwell's equations, per se. That's why I'm not interested in them here. My concern is with SR, as it's own theory, which is a theory of relative motion, not electro-magnetism. Edited March 21, 2019 by Moronium Quote
alright1234 Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 Dear Honorable Dr. Moronium my good Friend, Really, then who justified Maxwell's theory that is based on Faraday's induction effect that is not luminous. Also, the African American was Parker whom discovered the solenoid that lead to the invention of the telegraph. Sincerely yours Quote
Moronium Posted March 21, 2019 Report Posted March 21, 2019 Really, then who justified Maxwell's theory... I am critical of SR, and my criticisms have been expressed throughout this thread. Do you have anything to add to, dispute, or question about any of the posts I've made? As I said, I'm not interested in discussing Maxwell's equations. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.