



Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place... The Space and Astronomy Agora 
Re: Don't Misscorrect You Didn't Understand
Forum List  Follow Ups  Post Message  Back to Thread Topics  In Response To Posted by Zephram Cochrane/">Zephram Cochrane on February 11, 2000 19:28:16 UTC 
: re  It is because the laws of physics are frame covariant and the Lorenz speed is finite. is a bit off. Its not off at all. Don't misscorrect statements that you didn't understand. : First  It is because the laws of physics are frame covariant (which is correct) means, in case you're unfamiliar with the language of relativity, that the laws of physics (usually expressed mathematically) are independent of the frame of the observer. I know exactly what it means, and what you just said is exactly what I meant by it. : Second  and the Lorenz speed is finite  I would phrase "the speed of light is locally invariant" (i.e. independent of the frame of reference). I said it the way I did for a reason. As far as this question is concerned it doesn't really matter that light moves at the Lorenz invariant speed c. This is merely convenient for experimental purposes. What is relevant to the question is that the Lorenz speed c is finite. I was responding to the question in its general context which really boils down to "why must we use the equations of the Lorenz group and why can't we use the special case of Gallelean transformations?" The answer is exactly my response. Lorenz group transformations are the only 3d+1 transformations that leave the laws of physics frame covariant in spacetime with Cartesian geometry. If the Lorenz speed c were infinite they would reduce to Gallelean. It is because the Lorenz speed c is finite that we have all the length contractions and time dilations of special relativity. : : Time dilation is always present with space shortening, why? : This isn't true. One can have a nonEuclidean space in which there is no time dilatation. This is always true in special relativity. This was obviously a special relativity question. If you'd take the question and answer in this context you'd have nothing to complain about.


Additional Information 

About Astronomy Net  Advertise on Astronomy Net  Contact & Comments  Privacy Policy 
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 19942023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post. "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET" are trademarks of John Huggins 