Hello all,

Reading some recent posts prompted this...

I have some questions regarding the so-called Tangherlini (or
Ives...Selleri...ad infinatum) transforms as opposed to the
conventional Lorentz transforms of SR. I have been told that these
transforms are both 'experimentally equivalent', in that they would
both give the same results under testing. However, they are obviously
different, as with the Lorentz transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = gamma(t-vx)

....we assume relativity of simultaniety, as is evident from the x
factor in the t' equation. Thus, time depends on where your frame is
at with respect to some others. All frames are then preferred frames,
not just one. Hence all frames are equivalent. However with the
Tangherlini transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = t / gamma

....so we assume an absolute simultaniety. Time no longer is assumed to
depend on differences in locations of various frames. Therefore it can
be assumed that there is only one preferred frame. I am not arguing
for the use of one viewpoint or another, just wanting to understand
how these two different bits of theory can be so different and yet
give the same test results.

Now here is where I get confused;

1. Why is the t' given as t/gamma and not t*gamma? In the Lorentz
transforms and the x' transform of Tangherlini, the gamma factor is
always multiplicative. Why here is division used?

2. When you use the Lorentz transforms to transform to the frame of
some body moving at some speed (lets say for this argument, .6c with a
gamma of 1.25) you get nice round numbers for the speed of light in
that frame as compared with the rest frame...namely, 1c in every
direction. However...if you do this with the Tangherlini transforms,
the speed of light is no longer constant in every direction, but
attains some odd values. For an object moving 0.6c, I get a c in the
positive direction (in the direction of the moving observer's travel)
of 0.625c, and in the reverse direction of -2.5c. Something doesn't
seem right here. Shouldn't the moving observer still see these values
as c with respect to himself, not .625c or -2.5c? How can these
totally different results be claimed as experimentally
indistinguishable from special relativity and the associated Lorentz
Transforms?

Thank you in advance,
--Kyle

"Kyle Mcallister" wrote in message
om...

I have some questions regarding the so-called Tangherlini
(or Ives...Selleri...ad infinatum) transforms as opposed to the
conventional Lorentz transforms of SR. I have been told that
these transforms are both 'experimentally equivalent', in that
they would both give the same results under testing.

What you have heard is correct.

However, they are obviously different

I recommend that you study fundamental papers on relativity that
emphasize the meaning of time and synchronization and exactly
how resetting clocks modifies the transformation equations.
Here's an excellent paper that does that exceptionally well:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

You also might want to see how that introductory paper is used in
the following derivation of the so-called Tangherlini transformation:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

Eugene Shubert

"Kyle Mcallister" wrote in message
om...

2. When you use the Lorentz transforms to transform to the frame of
some body moving at some speed (lets say for this argument, .6c with
a gamma of 1.25) you get nice round numbers for the speed of light
in that frame as compared with the rest frame...namely, 1c in every
direction. However...if you do this with the Tangherlini transforms,
the speed of light is no longer constant in every direction, but
attains some odd values. For an object moving 0.6c, I get a c in the
positive direction (in the direction of the moving observer's
travel) of 0.625c, and in the reverse direction of -2.5c. Something
doesn't seem right here. Shouldn't the moving observer still see
these values as c with respect to himself, not .625c or -2.5c?
How can these totally different results be claimed as experimentally
indistinguishable from special relativity and the associated Lorentz
Transforms?

If you understand
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf
follow that line of reasoning by reading
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
That second page should answer your questions, now that you
understand the meaning of clock synchronization.

In the second link, you don't have to worry about any of the
topological issues that were raised. Just pretend that the universe
is arbitrarily immense in size; look at everything locally and ignore
the topological differences.

Eugene Shubert

Kyle Mcallister wrote:
I have some questions regarding the so-called Tangherlini (or
Ives...Selleri...ad infinatum) transforms as opposed to the
conventional Lorentz transforms of SR. I have been told that these
transforms are both 'experimentally equivalent', in that they would
both give the same results under testing.

Yes. BTW this is not obvious from a casual inspection of the transforms,
it requires a complete analysis to conclude this.


However, they are obviously
different, as with the Lorentz transforms..
x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = gamma(t-vx)
...we assume relativity of simultaniety, as is evident from the x
factor in the t' equation. Thus, time depends on where your frame is
at with respect to some others.

If you look in your own frame, there is no such dependence -- time (or
rather the time coordinate) simply is, with no visible "dependence on
where you are". And if I guess what you are trying to say, it is really
where within your frame you are, and not "where your frame is...".


All frames are then preferred frames,
not just one.

Goodness, no. There is no preferred frame. But this is also not obvious
from a casual inspection of the transforms, it requires a complete
analysis to conclude this.

Knowledge of group theory makes the analysis painless.


Hence all frames are equivalent.

Yes. Hence no preferred frame.


However with the
Tangherlini transforms...
x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = t / gamma
...so we assume an absolute simultaniety.

Hmmm. Some meanings of "absolute" apply, but not all. Note this is ONLY
simultaneity, and nonzero time differences are in no way "absolute".


Time no longer is assumed to
depend on differences in locations of various frames. Therefore it can
be assumed that there is only one preferred frame.

Well, there is indeed a single preferred frame. But this is also not
obvious from a casual inspection of the transforms, it requires a
complete analysis to conclude this.


1. Why is the t' given as t/gamma and not t*gamma? In the Lorentz
transforms and the x' transform of Tangherlini, the gamma factor is
always multiplicative. Why here is division used?

In the Lorentz transform there is a partial cancellation between the two
terms in the t' equation; there are not two terms in the Tangherlini
transform, and hence no cancellation.

Note that for the Lorentz transform, a moving clock is measured to tick
slower by a factor of 1/gamma, not by a factor of gamma -- so in this
sense the two transforms agree.


2. When you use the Lorentz transforms to transform to the frame of
some body moving at some speed (lets say for this argument, .6c with a
gamma of 1.25) you get nice round numbers for the speed of light in
that frame as compared with the rest frame...namely, 1c in every
direction. However...if you do this with the Tangherlini transforms,
the speed of light is no longer constant in every direction, but
attains some odd values.

Yes. The COORDINATE speed of light is not isotropically c in the moving
frame with the TT.

However if you want to MEASURE the speed of light, you must take two
clocks, synchronize them, place them some distance apart, and measure
the time difference for a light ray to travel between them. When you
analyze this entire sequence, you obtain c in all directions for the
ratio of distance/time-difference. That is, of course, precisely what SR
predicts, and is a reflection of the experimental indistinguishability
of the two transforms.

Why this is so depends upon how you synchronize your clocks:
a) Use Einstein synchronization -- it should be obvious that the
1-way anisotropy is cancelled by this procedure.
b) use slow clock transport. For both transforms this yields the
same result as Einstein synchronization. But this is not
obvious from a casual inspection of the transforms, it
requires a complete analysis to conclude this.
c) use any other method, and the TT yields the same result as the LT.
But this is also not obvious from a casual inspection of the
transforms, it requires a complete analysis to conclude this.


For an object moving 0.6c, I get a c in the
positive direction (in the direction of the moving observer's travel)
of 0.625c, and in the reverse direction of -2.5c. Something doesn't
seem right here. Shouldn't the moving observer still see these values
as c with respect to himself, not .625c or -2.5c? How can these
totally different results be claimed as experimentally
indistinguishable from special relativity and the associated Lorentz
Transforms?

You are considering unmeasurable coordinate velocities. To actually make
a measurement you must synchronize your clocks, and for the TT such
synchronized clocks do not reflect the t' coordinate. See above (and/or
my ancient trilogy on the subject). So this equivalence between the TT
and the LT extends only to predictions of measurements, not of coordinates.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. ..
| Kyle Mcallister wrote:
| I have some questions regarding the so-called Tangherlini (or
| Ives...Selleri...ad infinatum) transforms as opposed to the
| conventional Lorentz transforms of SR. I have been told that these
| transforms are both 'experimentally equivalent', in that they would
| both give the same results under testing.
|
| Yes. BTW this is not obvious from a casual inspection of the transforms,
| it requires a complete analysis to conclude this.

Partial analysis:

The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.

For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

Conclusion: The Lorentz transforms cannot be derived.

Androcles.

Dear Kyle



You ask an interesting question. (see question below)

First, there is a difference between the Tangherlini transformations and the
Selleri transformations. Indeed Selleri has generalized the Tangherlini
transformations which are really valid only when they connect the aether
frame with any other inertial frame.

Tangherlini and Selleri transformations assume the existence of a privileged
aether frame.



When one assumes the existence of this aether frame, one can demonstrate
that the Lorentz transformations are based on the synchronization procedure
of Einstein-Poincaré with light signals, which supposes the isotropy of the
speed of light in all inertial frames. (A point which is contested in the
theories of Tangherlini and Selleri).

On the contrary the transformations of Selleri are based on an absolute
synchronization procedure, which assumes that the speed of light is C
exclusively in the aether frame. For this reason they take a different
mathematical form.

The term vx / c², in the Lorentz transformations results from the
synchronization procedure and is only conventional. I explain myself:
consider the Lorentz transformation:





Using the absolute synchronization procedure, the term vx / c² disappears,
and one obtains.







The question is not so much difficult, but it is uneasy to explain it in
detail in this limited space. For more detailed informations you can consult
my book "From Galileo to Lorentz and beyond" chapters 3 and 5. The book has
been reviewed and agreed by Pr J.P Vigier. It is available at Amazon web
site http://www.amazon.com

or at the publisher's address http://redshift.vif.com

In the book it is also demonstrated that, due to systematic measurement
distorsions entailed by length contraction, clock retardation and arbitrary
clock synchronization, the speed of light is found to be isotropic in all
inertial frames although it is not.

The implications for fundamental physics are far reaching.



Best regards,

Joseph





"Kyle Mcallister" a écrit dans le message de
om...

Hello all,

Reading some recent posts prompted this...

I have some questions regarding the so-called Tangherlini (or
Ives...Selleri...ad infinatum) transforms as opposed to the
conventional Lorentz transforms of SR. I have been told that these
transforms are both 'experimentally equivalent', in that they would
both give the same results under testing. However, they are obviously
different, as with the Lorentz transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = gamma(t-vx)

...we assume relativity of simultaniety, as is evident from the x
factor in the t' equation. Thus, time depends on where your frame is
at with respect to some others. All frames are then preferred frames,
not just one. Hence all frames are equivalent. However with the
Tangherlini transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = t / gamma

...so we assume an absolute simultaniety. Time no longer is assumed to
depend on differences in locations of various frames. Therefore it can
be assumed that there is only one preferred frame. I am not arguing
for the use of one viewpoint or another, just wanting to understand
how these two different bits of theory can be so different and yet
give the same test results.

Now here is where I get confused;

1. Why is the t' given as t/gamma and not t*gamma? In the Lorentz
transforms and the x' transform of Tangherlini, the gamma factor is
always multiplicative. Why here is division used?

2. When you use the Lorentz transforms to transform to the frame of
some body moving at some speed (lets say for this argument, .6c with a
gamma of 1.25) you get nice round numbers for the speed of light in
that frame as compared with the rest frame...namely, 1c in every
direction. However...if you do this with the Tangherlini transforms,
the speed of light is no longer constant in every direction, but
attains some odd values. For an object moving 0.6c, I get a c in the
positive direction (in the direction of the moving observer's travel)
of 0.625c, and in the reverse direction of -2.5c. Something doesn't
seem right here. Shouldn't the moving observer still see these values
as c with respect to himself, not .625c or -2.5c? How can these
totally different results be claimed as experimentally
indistinguishable from special relativity and the associated Lorentz
Transforms?

Thank you in advance,
--Kyle

Dear Kyle



You ask an interesting question. (See question below)

First, there is a difference between the Tangherlini transformations and the
Selleri transformations. Indeed Selleri has generalized the Tangherlini
transformations which are really valid only when they connect the aether
frame with any other inertial frame.

Tangherlini and Selleri transformations assume the existence of a privileged
aether frame.



When one assumes the existence of this aether frame, one can demonstrate
that the Lorentz transformations are based on the synchronization procedure
of Einstein-Poincaré with light signals, which supposes the isotropy of the
speed of light in all inertial frames. (A point which is contested in the
theories of Tangherlini and Selleri).

On the contrary the transformations of Selleri are based on an absolute
synchronization procedure, which assumes that the speed of light is C
exclusively in the aether frame. For this reason they take a different
mathematical form.

The term vx / c², in the Lorentz transformations results from the
synchronization procedure and is only conventional. I explain myself:
consider the Lorentz transformation:





Using the absolute synchronization procedure, the term vx / c² disappears,
and one obtains.







The question is not so much difficult, but it is uneasy to explain it in
detail in this limited space. For more detailed informations you can consult
my book "From Galileo to Lorentz and beyond" chapters 3 and 5. The book has
been reviewed and agreed by Pr J.P Vigier. It is available at Amazon web
site http://www.amazon.com

or at the publisher's address http://redshift.vif.com

In the book it is also demonstrated that, due to systematic measurement
distorsions entailed by length contraction, clock retardation and arbitrary
clock synchronization, the speed of light is found to be isotropic in all
inertial frames although it is not.

The implications for fundamental physics are far reaching.



Best regards,

Joseph





"Kyle Mcallister" a écrit dans le message de
om...

Hello all,

Reading some recent posts prompted this...

I have some questions regarding the so-called Tangherlini (or
Ives...Selleri...ad infinatum) transforms as opposed to the
conventional Lorentz transforms of SR. I have been told that these
transforms are both 'experimentally equivalent', in that they would
both give the same results under testing. However, they are obviously
different, as with the Lorentz transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = gamma(t-vx)

...we assume relativity of simultaniety, as is evident from the x
factor in the t' equation. Thus, time depends on where your frame is
at with respect to some others. All frames are then preferred frames,
not just one. Hence all frames are equivalent. However with the
Tangherlini transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = t / gamma

...so we assume an absolute simultaniety. Time no longer is assumed to
depend on differences in locations of various frames. Therefore it can
be assumed that there is only one preferred frame. I am not arguing
for the use of one viewpoint or another, just wanting to understand
how these two different bits of theory can be so different and yet
give the same test results.

Now here is where I get confused;

1. Why is the t' given as t/gamma and not t*gamma? In the Lorentz
transforms and the x' transform of Tangherlini, the gamma factor is
always multiplicative. Why here is division used?

2. When you use the Lorentz transforms to transform to the frame of
some body moving at some speed (lets say for this argument, .6c with a
gamma of 1.25) you get nice round numbers for the speed of light in
that frame as compared with the rest frame...namely, 1c in every
direction. However...if you do this with the Tangherlini transforms,
the speed of light is no longer constant in every direction, but
attains some odd values. For an object moving 0.6c, I get a c in the
positive direction (in the direction of the moving observer's travel)
of 0.625c, and in the reverse direction of -2.5c. Something doesn't
seem right here. Shouldn't the moving observer still see these values
as c with respect to himself, not .625c or -2.5c? How can these
totally different results be claimed as experimentally
indistinguishable from special relativity and the associated Lorentz
Transforms?

Thank you in advance,
--Kyle

"Androcles" wrote after crawling
out from under his bridge:



Partial analysis:

The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.

For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

Conclusion: The Lorentz transforms cannot be derived.

Androcles.


And just how many goats did you have for breakfast this morning?

"Kyle Mcallister" a écrit dans le message de
om...

I have some questions regarding the so-called Tangherlini (or
Ives...Selleri...ad infinatum) transforms as opposed to the
conventional Lorentz transforms of SR. I have been told that
these transforms are both 'experimentally equivalent', in that they
would both give the same results under testing. However, they
are obviously different, as with the Lorentz transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = gamma(t-vx)

...we assume relativity of simultaniety, as is evident from the x
factor in the t' equation. However with the Tangherlini transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = t / gamma

...so we assume an absolute simultaniety. Time no longer is assumed to
depend on differences in locations of various frames. Therefore it can
be assumed that there is only one preferred frame. I am not arguing
for the use of one viewpoint or another, just wanting to understand
how these two different bits of theory can be so different and yet
give the same test results.

That's because Special Relativity is not a matter of coordinate
systems, but a matter of group of symmetry (the _restricted_
Poincaré group of symmetry if you account for the violation
of P and T symmetries by the neutral Kaon desintegration).

You can choose a preferred frame and declare that the
synchronisation process of distant cloks in this preferred
frame is the "good one", but if you cannot exhibit phenomena
violating the boost invariance that provide a strong physical
meaning to your assumed preferred simultaneity, your
synchronisation process is deprived of any physical
and mathematical meaning.

Now here is where I get confused;

1. Why is the t' given as t/gamma and not t*gamma? In the Lorentz
transforms and the x' transform of Tangherlini, the gamma factor is
always multiplicative. Why here is division used?

If you choose a preferred frame and use the synchronisation
convention occuring in this frame to synchronise distant clocks
in other frames, that's what you get (time t' is flowing slower
in the "moving inertial frame" R', ie delta t' delta t).

2. When you use the Lorentz transforms to transform to the frame of
some body moving at some speed (lets say for this argument, .6c with a
gamma of 1.25) you get nice round numbers for the speed of light in
that frame as compared with the rest frame...namely, 1c in every
direction. However...if you do this with the Tangherlini transforms,
the speed of light is no longer constant in every direction, but
attains some odd values. How can these
totally different results be claimed as experimentally
indistinguishable from special relativity and the
associated Lorentz Transforms?

That's because the laws of physics don't depend on the
choice of coordinates in which you express these laws.
These differences don't express physically different
outcomes, but a different choice of coordinates
in which you express these outcomes.

The Lorentz Transforms are the more natural
coordinates choice because they satisfy the covariance
of the expression of the laws of physics with regard
to the action of the restricted Poincaré group (as soon
as these laws are assumed to satisfy the restricted
Poincaré group symmetries).

That's to say, if I perform two identical experiments
in two inertial frames and use the Lorentz transforms
(encompassing the relativist synchronisation),
then the two phenomena will be described with
the same equations.

This is not true if I use the Tangherlini transforms.

That's why the Relativity Of Simultaneity is a natural
choice as far as the detection of a motion of the observer
(with regard to a possible medium where quantum waves
would propagate) is assumed to be impossible (which
is true if the Poincaré group symmetries are satisfied
by any phenomena).

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of Alain Aspect experiment interpretation as an action
at a distance with a formulation of Special Relativity in the framework
of Aristotle space-time (and an interpretation of relativist invariance as
an intrinsic property of phenomena that actually satisfy this invariance).

Dear Kyle



You ask an interesting question. (See question below)

First, there is a difference between the Tangherlini transformations and the
Selleri transformations. Indeed Selleri has generalized the Tangherlini
transformations which are really valid only when they connect the aether
frame with any other inertial frame.

Tangherlini and Selleri transformations assume the existence of a privileged
aether frame.



When one assumes the existence of this aether frame, one can demonstrate
that the Lorentz transformations are based on the synchronization procedure
of Einstein-Poincaré with light signals, which supposes the isotropy of the
speed of light in all inertial frames. (A point which is contested in the
theories of Tangherlini and Selleri).

On the contrary the transformations of Selleri are based on an absolute
synchronization procedure, which assumes that the speed of light is C
exclusively in the aether frame. For this reason they take a different
mathematical form.

The term vx / c², in the Lorentz transformations results from the
synchronization procedure and is only conventional. I explain myself:
consider the Lorentz transformation:





Using the absolute synchronization procedure, the term vx / c² disappears,
and one obtains.







The question is not so much difficult, but it is uneasy to explain it in
detail in this limited space. For more detailed informations you can consult
my book "From Galileo to Lorentz and beyond" chapters 3 and 5. The book has
been reviewed and agreed by Pr J.P Vigier. It is available at Amazon web
site http://www.amazon.com

or at the publisher's address http://redshift.vif.com

In the book it is also demonstrated that, due to systematic measurement
distorsions entailed by length contraction, clock retardation and arbitrary
clock synchronization, the speed of light is found to be isotropic in all
inertial frames although it is not.

The implications for fundamental physics are far reaching.



Best regards,

Joseph





"Kyle Mcallister" a écrit dans le message de
om...

Hello all,

Reading some recent posts prompted this...

I have some questions regarding the so-called Tangherlini (or
Ives...Selleri...ad infinatum) transforms as opposed to the
conventional Lorentz transforms of SR. I have been told that these
transforms are both 'experimentally equivalent', in that they would
both give the same results under testing. However, they are obviously
different, as with the Lorentz transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = gamma(t-vx)

...we assume relativity of simultaniety, as is evident from the x
factor in the t' equation. Thus, time depends on where your frame is
at with respect to some others. All frames are then preferred frames,
not just one. Hence all frames are equivalent. However with the
Tangherlini transforms...

x' = gamma(x-vt)
t' = t / gamma

...so we assume an absolute simultaniety. Time no longer is assumed to
depend on differences in locations of various frames. Therefore it can
be assumed that there is only one preferred frame. I am not arguing
for the use of one viewpoint or another, just wanting to understand
how these two different bits of theory can be so different and yet
give the same test results.

Now here is where I get confused;

1. Why is the t' given as t/gamma and not t*gamma? In the Lorentz
transforms and the x' transform of Tangherlini, the gamma factor is
always multiplicative. Why here is division used?

2. When you use the Lorentz transforms to transform to the frame of
some body moving at some speed (lets say for this argument, .6c with a
gamma of 1.25) you get nice round numbers for the speed of light in
that frame as compared with the rest frame...namely, 1c in every
direction. However...if you do this with the Tangherlini transforms,
the speed of light is no longer constant in every direction, but
attains some odd values. For an object moving 0.6c, I get a c in the
positive direction (in the direction of the moving observer's travel)
of 0.625c, and in the reverse direction of -2.5c. Something doesn't
seem right here. Shouldn't the moving observer still see these values
as c with respect to himself, not .625c or -2.5c? How can these
totally different results be claimed as experimentally
indistinguishable from special relativity and the associated Lorentz
Transforms?

Thank you in advance,
--Kyle