Timeline for Is it possible to derive Lorentz transformation equation without Einstein's postulates?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2016 at 20:57 | history | edited | Fausto Vezzaro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
changed a to u in relativistic 2nd Newton law (obviously a typing error)
|
| Nov 1, 2016 at 17:52 | comment | added | Fausto Vezzaro | @MarcoDisce in my home page I added a pdf (click on motoassoluto) where I wrote why I don't see any irremediable incompatibility between newtonian mechanics and maxwellian electromagnetism (I develop calculus that I speak about here above). We gain in viewability but of course we have to pay by increasing the number of assumption that hold the theory. It is in italian. | |
| Oct 30, 2016 at 23:00 | history | edited | Fausto Vezzaro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I numbered the assumpion and I added the dynamic part
|
| Aug 21, 2016 at 15:56 | comment | added | Fausto Vezzaro | Thank for the pdf, I think that relativity is usually introduced in a very fast and abstract way that I find unaesthetic (for my liking). I agree with author: "special relativity should be taught starting from the idea of a preferred frame" and then show that this frame has to be abandoned (obviously I strongly agree with Born: no place in physics for what is not observable by principle!). Anyway pdf speaks only about kinematics, but my problem is that I feel it must exists a natural extension of this point of view to dynamics and I don't find it. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 17:48 | comment | added | Marco Disce | Some of the hypotheses you listed are discussed here: web.ist.utl.pt/ist13264/publicat/TP1-v3.pdf | |
| Oct 6, 2014 at 6:32 | vote | accept | Sreram | ||
| Aug 13, 2014 at 18:37 | history | answered | Fausto Vezzaro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |