Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
However, since two scientists moving with respect to one another may indeed “presume” their personal frame is “the rest frame of the universe”(i.e., they ignore information which might settle the question) their physics must be valid in both frames (otherwise they will obtain different results, invalidating that presumption). It is that fact which requires the special relativistic transformations.
|
Isn’t it also possible though that they could just use explanations that require that elements exist that would place them at the rest frame of the universe? That is, choose invalid elements so that they are at the rest frame of the universe. I can see no reason why this couldn’t be done as long as the resulting explanation is flaw free. It just seems that as of yet there has been no property that such a reference frame would have other then it being “the rest frame of the universe” that would suggest that it is the rest frame. And so there is no way to tell if it is the rest frame or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
That shift is completely analogous to the ordinary Galilean transformation of non-relativistic physics. It gives the phenomena being described as seen by the rest observer's construct of a moving inertial frame. It omits changes due to the moving observer's different definition of simultaneity but it still yields the correct results (just not in the perspective of the moving observer).
|
So are these the quantum mechanical transformations and so still not the relativistic transformations, so that if we considered a Newtonian universe that is one in which the Lorenz transformation would not be needed (which is not a possibility considering that all explanations must obey the Lorenz transformation) then these transforms would correspond to the corresponding acceleration, but in using these transformation there will be an error that will only be noticeable at relativistic speeds. In which case is it now possible to correct the transformations for relativistic speeds?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Again, I get the feeling you are confusing things here. It is the actual phenomena which must be the same from both reference frames; it will just be seen differently by the two observers
|
But won’t they only be seen differently by the two observers because they won’t agree on the mass, momentum and energy of the objects? If they agreed on these then they would agree on the measurements of the objects that they are explaining. And so, will agree on what they see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Again, small change in t is of little significance. Newton's equations are essentially two body equations whereas my equation is a many body equation. If you have the correct solution for the rest of all those bodies (which is, from Newtonian position, they can be ignored) then only those velocities are significant.
|
But still don’t we have to know what condition is necessary for us to use that two body solution as a solution and that is that we must be able to ignore influences from the rest of the universe which happens when the Dirac delta function has no effect on the equation for the elements we are ignoring? Maybe I’m just wondering to much about how big of an effect those elements that we are ignoring are going to have on the problem, but it seems that they will have some kind of effect, it is just a question of how big of an effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Clocks do not measure time (if time is defined by interactions) but rather measure changes in tau. If both observers define time via clocks (at rest in their frames) then they are essentially using the same units for space and time (tau is being referred to as if it were time). This means that the Lorenz transformation of distance measure is all we need to make the two velocities identical.
|
But don’t we still need to either define a measure of t (which makes little séance as it can’t be measured) or
so that we can define the value of
. Or maybe we are just using
as a measure of distance and so measuring it as length rather then velocity. In which case all that we need to do is define the value of
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
If “objects” (collections of elements which are stable structures over reasonable times) can exist, then there certainly exist things which have the same properties in both frames.
|
But won’t they appear to have different properties when observed from a different frame? That is, they won’t appear to be the same in their rest frame as in any other frame? For instance, if a object is defined to be a unit rod in its rest frame and measured in a moving frame then observers in both frames won’t agree on the length of the rod.
