|
Another example
I, Chandra Mouli Iyer (Chandru) , am an engineer working with a private
company in New Delhi, India.
I have an interest in the subject of Relativity and in particular "Special
Relativity" for several years and as a result of my self study and
interaction with people with similar interests, I have come to the
conclusion that the rejection of the Lorentz theory of relativity in favor
of the Einstenian version is not with sufficient basis. The brief summary
of my view is given below.
The enclosed contents succinctly and rigorously demonstrate how when clocks
in a moving frame run slow, the resultant distortions generate a view from
the moving frame that gives the impression that the clocks in the
stationary frame are running slow. This symmetry leads to the apparent
equivalence of the two frames. This can be compared to the apparent
equivalence of an image generated by a reflecting mirror to its object.
The equations of transformation of points of object
to points of image are symmetric with the inverse operation in the case of
the reflecting mirror. But the object and image, as we all know, are not
equivalent.
The contention of this paper is to emphasize that
a mathematical symmetry or equivalence of a transformation with its
inverse does not necessarily ensure the equivalence of the two entities
involved. The original Lorentz transformations were
backed up by the theory that a moving frame with contracted rulers and
slow running clocks which are the result of the movement itself, generates
an illusion that the rulers in the stationary frames are contracted and
the clocks in the stationary frames are slowing down. And the equations of
transformation of event coordinates between the two frames are symmetric
with only the movement reversed. ( +v to -v).
This symmetry was later interpreted as an equivalence of the two frames,
which led to the concept of a rotation in space-time continuum.
Obviously, the conclusion that the frames are equivalent because the
transformation and its inverse are symmetric is not sound in logic as
already explained by the simple case of the reflecting mirror. My other
papers are available at this link
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+iyer_chandru/0/1/0/all/0/1 .
Another example
|
