If correct: a catastrophe in the Lorentz transformation

[darkhorror]

I would agree, what you need to do is get rid of your preconceived notions of how you think spacetime works. Go back and try to understand what is happening and what is said without how you currently think it should work.

Start with the basics, try and understand how the constant speed of light means a change in things depending on the frame of reference. Go through and understand exactly what the math is saying, where it comes from. Maybe draw out a single scenario in a couple different frames of reference in such a way that you can understand it.

 

[JesseM]

No I meant exactly as I wrote "space" not "spacetime". Of course for using LT we will need the "spaetime" but it is my intention here to show that (my)intuition does not find it incorrect to think of 3D section of the whole 4D. I accept that two frames will use different coordinates but Why do you want me to think that at the moment I am writing this replay, I cannot think of a person reading something interesting of his own and being so far from Earth (in a spacelke interval from me) that a picture of him reading that book need 10^100000 light years to arrive to earth.

Because "at the moment I am writing this reply" has no frame-independent meaning. Again I really recommend you read about the philosophical difference between presentism and eternalism, it seems like your intuitions are based on assuming a presentist notion that the "real world" consists of a bunch of physical objects and events arranged in space in an objective present moment, but the eternalist view of the real world as being spacetime as a whole makes just as much sense. You might also want to take a look at this thread where I discussed similar issues with josephwouk.

Yes theory of relativity does not accept that or we can say the theory does not have a meaning for that, but that is the theory which even if it works fine, it does not mean it will continue to do so nor does a correct theoy (for now) mean that intuition is wrong. It may or may not be which always leave space for critisicing theories. Again I know that there are more or less subjectivity in intuition meaning but do you really think that the person from far a way (mentioned above) does not exist?

It's not that the person far away doesn't exist, it's that all points on his worldline have equal existence--the person at age 13, the person at age 25, the person at age 70, etc. There isn't any single one age that uniquely "exists" because that's his age at the "present", since "present" has no objective frame-independent meaning.

 

[bobc2]

It's not that the person far away doesn't exist, it's that all points on his worldline have equal existence--the person at age 13, the person at age 25, the person at age 70, etc. There isn't any single one age that uniquely "exists" because that's his age at the "present", since "present" has no objective frame-independent meaning.

Excellent explanation! Thanks for that enlightenment.

 

[aawahab76]

I have just seen this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0203025v1. This is just for your information but I do not know yet if it has any relation to this post.

 

[Dale]

It is just standard LET. Nothing new.

 

[aawahab76]

It is just standard LET. Nothing new.

what is "LET"?

 

[Dale]

Lorentz aether theory. It is an old interpretation of the Lorentz transform. It is experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

 

[Fredrik]

It is just standard LET.

I only spent a couple of minutes skimming through it, but that was enough to see that it also contains at least a few statements that are nothing but crackpot nonsense. The author even claims that "Relativity’s postulates are incompatible with Lorentz Transformation" and ends the paper with "Unless we understand that we are dealing with desynchronized clocks and unless we have in mind the meaning of the definitions we're using, we're likely to continue to make predictions about the physical world that will lead us to incomprehensible paradoxes." This shows that he doesn't understand special relativity, and that he's naive enough to think that relativity really is incomprehensible.

 

[Dale]

I only spent a couple of minutes skimming through it, but that was enough to see that it also contains at least a few statements that are nothing but crackpot nonsense.

That is not too surprising for someone who is not even aware of the LET. I read the abstract and didn't bother with the rest.

 

[GrayGhost]

I only spent a couple of minutes skimming through it, but that was enough to see that it also contains at least a few statements that are nothing but crackpot nonsense.

Indeed. The writer of the paper (that aawahab76 referenced) misunderstands how slower clock rate and time dilation are concurrently compatible by the theory. What he believes a parodox in SR is actually what makes the theory work.

GrayGhost

 

[harrylin]

I only spent a couple of minutes skimming through it, but that was enough to see that it also contains at least a few statements that are nothing but crackpot nonsense. The author even claims that "Relativity’s postulates are incompatible with Lorentz Transformation" and ends the paper with "Unless we understand that we are dealing with desynchronized clocks and unless we have in mind the meaning of the definitions we're using, we're likely to continue to make predictions about the physical world that will lead us to incomprehensible paradoxes." This shows that he doesn't understand special relativity, and that he's naive enough to think that relativity really is incomprehensible.

I now also skimmed through it; evidently the author does not understand the purely operational meaning of the postulates in special relativity. This often happens. And the conclusion is correct of course.