- #141
Dale
Mentor
- 35,604
- 13,944
Well, then you should find someone else who thinks it is a distinction worth making if you wish to pursue that topic further, that person isn't me. However, I should point out, that if you do make the distinction between measured and actual values of one thing (e.g. c) then you can make a similar distinction between measured and actual values of something else (e.g. RoS) and thereby un-circularize anything you run into, even if you consider the measured/actual distinction worthwhile.mangaroosh said:I think it is worth making the distinction, because, as mentioned above, an invariant measurement of c does not imply RoS; it is an invariant measurement of c plus RoS which results in RoS; with the latter being circular in nature.
Consider the attached Venn diagram representing the set of all linear transformations on spacetime. The Lorentz transformation has [itex]\text{LC} \cap \text{TD} \cap \text{RoS}[/itex] so it is in subset 4. When you make a statement like [itex](\text{LC} \cap \text{TD}) \rightarrow \text{RoS}[/itex] you are saying that subset 1 is empty. You cannot determine the emptiness of subset 1 by considering only transforms in subset 4.mangaroosh said:I should, more precisely, have said, I don't see the relevance of using a transformation that is not the Lorentz transformation.
If you assume the Lorentz transform then all you can say is [itex]\text{LT} \rightarrow (\text{LC} \cap \text{TD} \cap \text{RoS})[/itex] and you cannot make any claims about whether or not any of them are implied by any of the others. I am certainly happy to do that, but it basically ends the entire discussion after my original point that you had neglected RoS.
Attachments
Last edited: