Actually, Einstein used only one  principle, if you consider that Maxwell equation are right and it does not change with transformations, it implies that light velocity is constant in any referencial frame. It helps understanding the meaning of the derivation.

You would be better off studying General Relativity. Lorentz transformations can be very confusing, because they are ONLY to be used to translate coordinates from one inertial frame to another inertial frame. They do not explain "why". An understand of why it is the way it is, comes from understanding GR. SR just tells you how to do math to get the right answer. It doesn't offer any explanation. 

My recent paper offers one of the best "physical" explanations for time dilation and length contraction that you will find. 

Article AN ENGINEERING MODEL OF QUANTUM GRAVITY

@ Khripov, I understand what you are saying as I have been haunted by the same problem as well. To me what it earlier appeared was that it is merely an "apparent" effect and not a "real" one.  But the biggest merit in favor of relativity is that it is experimentally verified. Still I guess no one understands it completely and this is why it often catches interest of many including here in RG forum.

I had my own share of difficulties. Example, the whole notion of time is based on light velocity, remember the texts explaining relativity, define time as the time elapsed in bouncing between the parallel mirrors by a photon? What if the photon misses the mirror in an attempt to travel a vertical straight path rather than a slanted one? I would expect that. Also I never understood how does such effects effect the pace of biological processes. For some reason it seems measurement of distance and time are so intricately fused into one another that it is difficult to come out of it.  And when I tried to clarify them from top guns in the field they replied "This is what it is.".

Like in your case, you cannot witness v = distance/t as it is well proven fact. If you can come with a different formulation which can kill relativistic effects but still keeps the experimental observations untampered, then you are good, otherwise no.

I think the Einstein derivation is  not as simple as you thought ,  You must be able to   understand  whole  4D space time  derivation  1st. then try to proof  those equation one by one ..Good luck  

Dear Sirs,

I see that the Einstein derivation just confirms the light velocity constancy. The later is the physical fact. But how is the second principle of relativity is used in this derivation? The only physical law I see is "the light propagates via the spherical wave centered at the source at the initial moment at the light speed". Is this derivation true at the Earth or just in space free of any masses?

Any measurement of time and distance is altered by the presence of large masses. The Earth's effect is small, but measurable. SR does not take the Earth's gravitational acceleration into consideration. SR and Lorentz transformations are only used to convert coordinates between 2 inertial reference frames. The surface of the Earth is not an inertial reference frame.

Dear Todd,

Do we obtain the same Lorentz transformation if we account for the gravitation and the rotation of the Earth?

No, they no longer apply. We must use General Relativity and the appropriate generalized coordinate transformations therein, based on the appropriate metric. Lorentz transformations ONLY apply to inertial reference frames, i.e., in the absence of all gravity or accelerations.

Dear Anatoly,

"Do we obtain the same Lorentz transformation if we account for the gravitation and the rotation of the Earth?"

Yes. I apologize for the brevity of my answer. I wrote a supporting explanation only to accidentally wipe it out. In short, when one takes gravity and the rotation of the Earth into consideration, one has returned the derivation of the Lorentz transforms back to the same simple conditions used to originally derive them. My fuller explanation would have included arguing against the transforms being applied reciprocally as if they applied equally and simultaneously to the two observers. It also would have argued against altering and complicating the conditions used for deriving the transforms for the purpose of making them fit into someone's theory including relativity theory. The transforms are derived from a minimal number of empirically supported conditions and their predictions are empirically supported. They do not belong to anyone's theory.  

The Lorentz Transforms need to be understood from the minimum number of conditions required to derive them. Their meaning is established by the conditions governing the form of their initial  equations. All else that is offered to be added on conditions are mathematical adaptions needed to fit the transforms to serve conditions that were not needed for nor are consistent with the original derivation of the transforms. Those are offers to alter the meanings of the transforms for the purpose of serving theoretical ideas that are inconsistent with original meanings. The minimum number of conditions is three: !. There is an observer at rest with respect to the origin of the light; 2. There is a second observer moving away from the first observer with a velocity v; 3. The light's velocity is in line with and in the same direction as the velocity of the second observer; 4. Both observers must measure the speed of light as C. It is not required that the speed of light be C for both observers. The observer at rest is stationary with respect to the origin of the light. The speed of the light is C away from that observer. The speed of light is C-v for the second obsserver. The solution is: Light's speed with respect to the second observer is C-v. The measuring instruments of the second observer must change so that that observer will measure the speed of the light as C. Both the clock and the meter stick of the observer must change so that C-v = C

That message of mine above was not completed yet. It was accidentally posted too soon. I will need to say more about it. That last sentence never got a chance to be reread. 

Special relativity is in a sense formal because of its limited applicability, known at the outset, to physics. It can't apply where there is strong acceleration or large masses which cuts out most of the dynamics in physics and it has been said to be kinematic effects only. This sees the main effects of SR as due to the shift to 4-space with a Minkowski metric. So kinematics in 4-space includes time dilation and length contraction parallel to the velocity of the moving frame. The Lorentz transform was originally derived as the transform of electromagnetic phenomena to a moving frame. What Einstein added was to show that it can be derived assuming the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum which makes it apply to a wider range of physics than just EM. So in the list of axioms by Anatoly, the third is not a necessary assumption. Making the x-axis parallel to the velocity of the moving frame is only done for convenience. The derivation goes through fine without it, it's just more unnecessary work.

Most all discussions of SR consider "bleed over" effects from General Relativity which covers most of the discussion above. But in light of GR, SR survives only in the small, that is, in GR it still applies to the transforms of infinitesimal quantities.

The sentence " Both the clock and meter stick of the observer must change so that c-v=c" (James Putnam) represents the fundamental aspect of SR and the deep reason of its contradictions. The speed of light with respect to the moving observer is c-v (Galilean relativity), but in order to respect "the postulate of the constancy of light" it needed that space and time could be changed in affected manner so that c-v=c. Hence Lorentz's Transformations have their reason in SR while in ether theories LT have their reason in the aim to save ether anyway. The Theory of Reference Frames demonstrates all this isn't necessary and it reaffirms the theoretical and experimental validity of the Galilean Relativity.

The Lorentz transformation (based on isotropic light-speed) is a special case of the more general Selleri gauge (see Rizzi et al. “Synchronization Gauges and the Principles of Special Relativity” (2008))—which is not to say that Einstein’s SRT and GRT are incorrect: They were empirically/scientifically quite appropriate, particularly for the early twentieth century when invented.

This consideration doesn’t necessarily make the subject easier to visualize or formulate, but it is a step towards the eventually deeper theory.

The property of isotropy indicated the same behaviour in all directions. The speed of light respects that property, that is the speed of light is always the same in all directions with respect to the same reference frame. With respect to different reference frames in relative motion the property of isotropy has no meaning because the behaviour of light with respect to different and various inertial reference frames is defined only by the Principle of Relativity. Similarly Maxwell's equations are defined with respect to one reference frame, the behaviour of the electromagnetic field with respect to different reference frames in inertial relative motion is defined still only by the Principle of Relativity.

Robert J. Low,

Thank you. 

Let’s go to the empirical fundamentals—the Michelson-Morley test in particular: the test does not tell us that light-speed is isotropic, only that the photon round-trip time is invariant (i.e., the so-called “Round Trip Axiom”). And so Einstein properly ignored anisotropic light speed as being irrelevant to physics as an empirical-based science (and also to satisfy “Occam’s Razor”).

But very recent work—Rizzi’s in particular—is giving a deeper understanding that may turn out to be fruitful. He addresses, in this regard, most if not all of the points given above.

I subscribe the fact that many contemporary physicists are critical towards Special Relativity and in general towards modern physics. It is manifest that in this new critical perspective of contemporary physics many new viewpoints and theories are possible and it indicates strong vitality. I have wanted only to communicate just the existence of the new Theory of Reference Frames that like other new theories searchs for giving new answers to problems of modern and postmodern physics.

Daniele Sasso,

"The sentence " Both the clock and meter stick of the observer must change so that c-v=c" (James Putnam) represents the fundamental aspect of SR ..."

Wrong Daniel. That is not the fundamental aspect of Special Relativity. It is the fundamental aspect of the Lorentz Transforms. Their foundation remains empirically supported at this point. Special Relativity doesn't own the transforms at this point. Special Relativity must wait for the incorrect application of reciprocity for theory to take its toll on the transforms. There is no aether. There is no waveform. There is only the empirically founded recognition that the speed of light measures locally as the constant C. Locally means the measurement instruments experience the same environmental conditions as does the observer who is assigned a velocity with respect to everything that is at rest in the background environment, including the first observer. The background environment is not someone's solution to a theoretical need. It is whatever it is that is the cause of the length and clock-time relationship between objects and C. The cause is officially unknown in the general physics community, but it is no aether. Define mass in terms of its pre-existing properties and the result is the answer for what is the cause of the relationship between objects and C. Go back and fix f=ma so that it is empirically completed. Actually, I already fixed it. Now, in this question and answer forum, I am fixing the Lorentz transforms. They are empirically justified equations with empirically testable predictions. At least they are so at this point where you think they belong to Special Relativity. They don't belong to Special Relativity until the reciprocity principle is arbitrarily imposed upon them.

Einstein`s derivation of Lorentz transformation is formal, artificial, as seems to me. What is the physical meaning of the derivation? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein_s_derivation_of_Lorentz_transformation_is_formal_artificial_as_seems_to_me_What_is_the_physical_meaning_of_the_derivation [accessed Sep 9, 2016].

Daniele Sasso,

" ... the speed of light is always the same in all directions with respect to the same reference frame. ... "

No. The speed of light always measures the same in all directions for an observer in a single reference frame. 

" ... With respect to different reference frames in relative motion the property of isotropy has no meaning because the behaviour of light with respect to different and various inertial reference frames is defined only by the Principle of Relativity. ... "

The measurement of the speed of light for observers having different relative velocities with respect to the light in any direction away from each observer is C. 

" ... Similarly Maxwell's equations are defined with respect to one reference frame, the behaviour of the electromagnetic field with respect to different reference frames in inertial relative motion is defined still only by the Principle of Relativity. "

Electromagnetic field theory has not helped to provide empirical evidence for either space or time suffering effects or causing effects. Relativity theory's foundation is the reciprocity principle and space-time. All effects observed to occur to objects are empirical evidence. The empirical effects that support the derivation of the Lorentz transforms consist of measurements involving meters and clock-seconds only. Objects are things that can be caused to change their velocities. We still have to derive the transforms. It can be done with no theoretical interference. Any claim to owning them by anyone's theory will inevitably be due to conditions that theorists impose upon the transforms after they are derived.  

Dear Putnam,

It seems to me that you like to play with words. I see no difference between your claim "The speed of light always measures the same in all directions for an observer in a single reference frame" and my claim "the speed of light is always the same in all directions with respect to the same reference frame". I will answer later to other your claims.

“Einstein`s derivation of Lorentz transformation is formal, artificial, as seems to me. What is the physical meaning of the derivation? ”

- that is so in certain sense; including therefore the SR is logically inconsistent theory, first of all – because of in the SR it is postulated that the absolute Matter’s spacetime doesn’t exist and thus all/every inertial reference frames are totally and completely equivalent; from what follow any number of evidently absurd consequences, including fantastic “relativistic spacetime transformations”.

In the reality the physical meaning of Lorentz transformation is rather simple when somebody understands that the Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian empty container, which consists of two times’ [the “true time” and the “coordinate time”] dimensions and three spatial dimensions; where [in the spacetime] all/every material objects move uninterruptedly simultaneously (in parallel) with the 4D speed of light in the 4D sub-spacetime and with 1D speed of light along the true time axis.

 Besides if a non-pointlike object, having, say, a spatial size/length L in some 3D direction X, moves in this direction, then this object [and/or a number of objects that compose a rigid enough system]  rotates in the (X, ctcoor) plain so, that its front parts become be younger then the back end on the Voigt-Lorentz temporal decrement Vx/c2, when the object’s/system/s spatial 3D projection becomes be “contracted” being equal to L(1-V2/c2)1/2. Analogously dynamical equations of the SR are obtained.

All is simple – the Lorentz transformations – and E=mc2, etc., are only applications of the Pythagoras theorem to the physical problems of the kinematics and dynamics of [historically – fast] moving bodies.

More – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics  DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494.

 Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

I prefer to derive Lorentz transformation from Minkowski geometry. See https://mipt.ru/education/chair/theoretical_physics/courses/analiticheskaya-mekhanika-i-sto.php

Lecture 5 contains traditional mental experiments. The Minkowski metric is derived. One needs just two experiments: invariance of transverse length and light-impulse clock.

Lecture 7 contains geometrical derivation of Lorentz transformation from invariance of Minkowski metric.

The fact that SR is an inconsistent theory doesn't prove Lorentz' s Transformations are right. On the contrary because LT are the heart of SR it means also those transformations are wrong, in all theories, whether neoclassic theories of ether and of absolute reference frame or modern and postmodern theories.

The derivation of LT from Minkowski's metric is based on the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light and the flawed argument is perfect.

Daniele  --  There's no question that The Lorentz transform works to see what electromagnetic phenomena look like in a moving  frame. It agrees with a number of experimental results.

Dear Sirs,

What is a opinion of Henry Poincare on Einstein first work? Why is Poincare famous work on Lorentz group and SR fundamentals not studied in textbooks?

Historically Einstein was a Minkowski`s student. Minkowski gave Einstein the work "Measure of time" by H. Poincare for the purpose of the start of scientific work. Einstein in his first SR paper did not refer to Poincare!  In "on Electrodynamics of moving bodies" there are not ANY REFERENCES!!! Why????

Maxwell's equations describe the electromagnetic field in every physical situation with respect to only one reference frame S[O,x,y,z,t,E,B]: that is the reference frame where e.m. waves move and the e.m.field propagates. In that reference frame S the speed of e.m. waves and of light is c, in all directions. Maxwell's equations say nothing and nothing can say with respect to other reference frames in relative inertial motion with respect to S. Only the Principle of Relativity allows to understand the behaviour of e.m. phenomena with respect to other IRFs. Therefore if the e.m. phenomenon happens in the system S[O,x,y,z,t,E,B], with respect to another IRF S'[O',x',y',z',t',E',B'] the behaviour of e.m. field and of e.m. waves must be such that Maxwell's equations are invariant and not the speed of light must be invariant. The Principle of Relativity says only this. In fact in SR Einstein was obliged to add the "postulate of constancy of the speed of light" in order to obtain in artificial way Lorentz's Transformations. In the Theory of Poincarè and Lorentz instead LT were obtained always in artificial way changing in artificial way properties of classic ether and introducing the length contraction and the local time (that then becomes time dilation). It is manifest that the same equations of transformation after all must say the same thing even if they start from different initial points. The Theory of Reference Frames proves Lorentz's Transformations are invalid and as per a new  physico-mathematical definition of the reference frame and the only Principle of Relativity demonstrates the full validity of the Galilean Relativity whether for mechanics or for electromagnetism.

For researchers who are interested in my comment, I advice

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260085469_Relativistic_Effects_of_the_Theory_of_Reference_Frames

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256391945_Physico-Mathematical_Fundamentals_of_the_Theory_of_Reference_Frames

Data Relativistic Effects of the Theory of Reference Frames

Article Physico-Mathematical Fundamentals of the Theory of Reference Frames

Were the Lorentz transformations (as the transformations to which Maxwell equations are invariant) obtained by Poincare for the first time? Why did Einstein not refer to the corresponding Poincare works?

Daniele  --  All you have to do is exhibit a case where the Lorentz transformations to a moving frame for EM are wrong. Criticizing the theory doesn't do any thing physical.

Daniel,

"It seems to me that you like to play with words. I see no difference between your claim "The speed of light always measures the same in all directions for an observer in a single reference frame" and my claim "the speed of light is always the same in all directions with respect to the same reference frame". I will answer later to other your claims."

The difference between our statements is the difference between your word. "is" and my word "measures".  Our statements are quite different in our meanings. 

Einstein`s derivation of Lorentz transformation is formal, artificial, as seems to me. What is the physical meaning of the derivation? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein_s_derivation_of_Lorentz_transformation_is_formal_artificial_as_seems_to_me_What_is_the_physical_meaning_of_the_derivation [accessed Sep 10, 2016].

Dear all Sirs!

It seems to me no one answered to my question: "WHAT DO LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS MEANS?????".

Anatoly,

"Meaning" in this context is considered a metaphysical term. The Lorentz Transforms are a mathematical tool to transform coordinates from one inertial reference frame to another, moving at a constant velocity relative to the first. Beyond that, there is no meaning unless you assign one.  The physics of time dilation and length contraction is spelled out in my paper. GR is an alternative interpretation, as is the Polarizable Vacuum Model. To be straight forward, you will not find the "physical" meaning in the Lorentz Transformations. If you want to understand the physics of time dilation and length contraction, you must study GR not SR.

Lorentz transformation is just analog of Galilee transformation, extended for relativistic case :)

Is there any experiment when the rod length was contracted?? I would be grateful for the reference

Anatoly,

“…It seems to me no one answered to my question: "WHAT DO LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS MEANS?????".”

-? The answers are in the SS post on 3-rd page, but if a more details are necessary, then:

- again, all/every material objects in the system “Matter”  always are interruptedly changing, i.e. they change their internal states and, in most cases, their spatial positions. At that:

any change of position of an material object is always accompanied by some 3D spatial interval, which at that must not be equal to zero exactly, what is observed as a spatial motion of the object;

any change of internal state of an having rest mass  material object is always accompanied by some 1D “coordinate time” interval, which at that must not be equal to zero exactly, what is observed as a temporal [in the “coordinate time”, i.e. in 4-th Matter’s spacetime dimension, see below] motion of the object; and

any change of position or of internal state of an having rest mass material object is always accompanied by some “true time” interval, which at that must not be equal to zero exactly, what is observed as a temporal [in the “true time”, i.e. in 5-th Matter’s spacetime dimension, see below] motion of the object;

any change of position and of internal state  of an zero rest mass material object is always accompanied by some “true time” interval, which at that must not be equal to zero exactly, when, since internal states change in 3D space simultaneously with change of spatial positions, these objects, e.g. photons, move only in the 3D space and don’t move in the coordinate time.

Thus the changings are realized in Matter’s [5]4D absolute Euclidian “empty container”/spacetime as the objects’ [and all system’s “Matter” as a whole] motions with the 4D speed of light in the 4D sub-spacetime and with 1D speed of light along the true time axis.

Besides, from above follow that: (i) – the Matter’s spacetime is “absolute”, it cannot move to anywhere; (ii) so 4D&1D motions of the objects with the speed of light are absolute also, from what follows, besides, that there can be considered at least two types of “absolute rests” of the objects: an object is at rest relating to the 3D space dimensions and an object is at rest relating to the 1D coordinate time dimension. Correspondingly every material object always has absolute 3D spatial and 1D coord-temporal speeds VS and Vtcoor.

Matter’s 4D sub-spacetime is “Cartesian”, i.e. all its axes are rectangular, from what follows:  (1) VS2 + Vtcoor2=c2; (2) Having rest mass object, e.g. a particle or a clock, if it is at 3D spatial rest then it moves with maximal speed Vtcoor [=c]  along the coordinate time axis what means that internal processes in the object change with maximal rate. If the object, after external material impact moves also with an [absolute] spatial speed, Vtcoor is lesser then c, i.e. the object’s internal processes rate slows down in (1- VS2/c2)1/2 times, the particle above lives longer then if it is at rest, clocks tick slower, etc.

- from this fact the Lorentz-factor appears in the Lorentz transformations in the equation that relates to the time variable.

Photons move in the 3D space only [so with the speed of light], thus the LT aren’t applicable to photons.

If the object is some non-pointlike body having a size/length L in a direction X, then it rotates in the (X, ctcoor) plain of the 4D sub-spacetime so that its projection becomes be contracted (see the SS post on 3 page) - from this fact the Lorentz-factor appears in the Lorentz transformations in the equation that relates to the spatial variable.

That’s practically all about the physical sense of the Lorentz transformations; besides that from above follow that the SR meaning of these transformations is incorrect in the SR because of, first of all, that  in this theory is postulated that there is no the absolute Matter’s spacetime and  the variables “X” and “t” relate not to coordinates of some concrete [points of] rigid bodies but to the whole spacetime, i.e. the LT depict not the moving bodies’ but the spacetime’s rotations  which happen by some mystic reason when some body start to move, so the observed “contractions” of moving bodies, slowing down of processes rates in fast particles, etc. are not the result of concrete material impacts on these bodies and particles, but the result of some mystic actions on these bodies and particles of “contracted [whole infinite] space” and “dilated [whole infinite] time”, so all bodies and particles in whole Matter become be contracted/ [processes in them] be “dilated” etc. etc., etc.

Again - more see the link in the SS post on 3-rd page.

Cheers

Actually, Einstein used only one  principle, if you consider that Maxwell equation are right and it does not change with transformations, it implies that light velocity is constant in any referencial frame. It helps understanding the meaning of the derivation.

Anatoly,

The Michelson-Moorley experiment is a verification of length contraction.

The conflict between neoclassic physicists and postmodern physicists continues because they don't want to understand and to accept both  make use of the same wrong mathematical model.

Good luck to both.

Anatoly A Khripov,

"It seems to me no one answered to my question: "WHAT DO LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS MEANS?????"."

You may be looking for an answer that makes sense in the world we observe? The transforms mean that the speed of light varies. The variation of the speed of light causes length-contraction, and, causes activity to slow (Incorrectly called time-dilation. There is no empirical evidence for time dilating.) There is empirical evidence for both effects. The variation of speed of light is the cause of action including the effect we call gravity. 

Conference Paper Empirical Origins for Force and Acceleration

James,

You are absolutely correct that the speed of light varies and is the cause of gravity, provided the reader understands that you are referring to the coordinate speed of light as viewed by a distant observer, and not the local speed of light measured by an inertial observer. The variable speed of light, c/K depends on your choice of reference frame, relative to the gravitational field. However, an inertial observer, local to the observation cannot measure this. In his frame, K=1. What is measured are differences in the length of rulers and the rate of clocks, between the local and distant observer.

You said this "causes activity to slow (Incorrectly called time-dilation...)". Time is measured by a clock. If gravity causes the rate (activity) of the clock to slow, that is what defines time dilation. They are not two different things. Your statement is a contradiction of itself. If activity slows, time is dilated. They are indistinguishable! Time does not exist outside what we measure with our local clocks, and it is their "activity" that determines  their rate of change. 

"Practically speaking, time is what is measured with a clock and space is what is measured with a ruler. Each is a device used to compare with other identical devices at different sets of coordinates. The distant observer uses his own devices to establish a coordinate system with which to compare his observations  to identical devices at distant coordinates. He chooses for example, to observe the light emitted by distant supernova and then compare them to the light of other similar events. From this data the distance to these events, and their motion relative to the observer is determined. [1]"

Todd J Desiato,

"Practically speaking, time is what is measured with a clock and space is what is measured with a ruler. ... "

The measurements are what physics equations use. However, the property of time has never been directly represented in physics equations. The unit of second is not a unit of time. it is what it is chosen to be, a unit of object activity. 

James,

So is the length of an "inch", the same is true of 'space'. That is how things are defined. What you're saying is that time is not what we measure with a clock. Then how is time measured? And what is the time if it's not what it says on my iPhone? ;)

Todd J Desiato,

Todd J Desiato,

All activity takes place during the passage of time. Relatively dependable cyclic activity can be said to be measuring time although not absolutely. The best choice for dependable cyclic activity is chosen. This is not bad practice. It serves well as a substitute in place a unit of time to measure the passage of time. The point that I make is not that clocks aren't useful. They are all we have for ticking off the passage of time. The point made is that they are not time. They are not controlling time. Photons report to us about incremental changes in the velocities of particles with respect to time. The Theory of Relativity notwithstanding, look to photons to tell us whatever it is that we will learn about time.   

There are no controlled specimens of either time or space held in any laboratory. Experimental physics measures the activities of objects. Theory consists of mixing the patterns of changes of velocities observed in empirical evidence with some imagined properties that substitute for lack knowledge. Answers that are said to exist beyond our experimental reach have become typical of theory. 

The length of a meter stick is the length of the stick. The meter is not a unit of space. A unit of space would be a piece of space. Neither time nor space are available for us to alter or even to measure. The best we can do is substitute measures of objects and object activity. The closest we can come to perhaps be measuring time is to discover a universally constant measure of object activity. The time it takes for a photon to travel the distance between the proton and electron of the hydrogen atom is found in my work to be universally constant. 

I present that universally constant measure of object activity in a ResearchGate listed paper of mine Electric Charge and Universal Time. There is no counterpart for space. 

Anatoly A Khripov,

I await your response. 

James Putnam

James,

JP: "Neither time nor space are available for us to alter or even to measure."

I agree with that statement, because in my understanding of physics, if something has no measurable effects. Then it probably doesn't exist. Your notion of space and time existing as something other than what we can measure with rulers or clocks, IMO, is an unnecessary fiction, which adds confusion and obfuscation to your posts and your papers that I've read. It is not required for "space-time" to be "something". it is only required that we can compare empirical measurements at one event with those at another in a common way. I think you are overthinking the reality of space-time and trying to make it into something other than what we can (and do) measure.

As someone who whole heartedly believes that reality is what we can (and do) measure, and things that can't be measured have no effect on reality, I would strongly disagree with the notion that space-time is anything other than what we measure with rulers and clocks. There is no evidence of it, and there is no need for it.

Todd J Desiato,

"It is not required for "space-time" to be "something". it is only required that we can compare empirical measurements at one event with those at another in a common way."

Then there is no need to mention it. It doesn't need a name. Events can  be compared so long as they exist in our measurable world.

"I think you are overthinking the reality of space-time and trying to make it into something other than what we can (and do) measure."

No I haven't been overthinking General Relativity. It is not of my making either more or less. I presume that you are presenting your personal view of it. 

I have read your paper also. I will respond to your request for feedback, but, first I must respond to Christian's expert paper. I think you should define mass as a necessary pre-requisite to mastering and controlling gravity. You can't bypass knowing what mass is.   

Einstein`s derivation of Lorentz transformation is formal, artificial, as seems to me. What is the physical meaning of the derivation? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein_s_derivation_of_Lorentz_transformation_is_formal_artificial_as_seems_to_me_What_is_the_physical_meaning_of_the_derivation [accessed Sep 11, 2016].

Einstein`s derivation of Lorentz transformation is formal, artificial, as seems to me. What is the physical meaning of the derivation? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein_s_derivation_of_Lorentz_transformation_is_formal_artificial_as_seems_to_me_What_is_the_physical_meaning_of_the_derivation [accessed Sep 11, 2016].

“…"Neither time nor space are available for us to alter or even to measure."

I agree with that statement, because in my understanding of physics, if something has no measurable effects. Then it probably doesn't exist…”

- In the reality indeed neither time nor space are available for us to alter or even to measure. And at that they fundamentally exist – if somebody understands what are notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time”; when these notions can be properly defined only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception at all and concerning to application of the definitions to Matter in our Universe - see the link in SS post on 3-rd page in this thread.

Both – “Space” and “Time” are some utmost fundamental [grammar] Rules/Possibilities from the set of Rules/Possibilities [in the conception – the set “Logos”] that are necessary for an information (when in the reality there is nothing besides some informational patterns) to be existent at all.

Including as the possibilities Space and Time form Matter’s [5]4D “Cartesian” empty container, as the rules they establish that between  positions of different material objects [and different positions of a moving object] in the 3D space must be non-zero “space interval” and that between different states of a changing material object [including changes of spatial position for the true time] must be non-zero “times [true time and coordinate time] intervals”;  and at that:

- both – for/in Matter the time and the space, so and the spacetime,  are fundamentally real; besides they fundamentally aren’t available to alter for anything inside, including “observers” ;

- neither time nor space  have some “own” inherent unities for be measured and so they cannot be measured, again unique what they establish is that spatial and temporal intervals must be non-zero, and so there is a possibility only to compare relatively  intervals if in a system there are at least two [in this case - material] dynamical objects; and just such [relative] space/time intervals are measured by humans relatively to concrete objects that are chosen and called “etalons”, i.e. rulers and clocks…

Cheers

Dear researchers

The Special Theory of Relativity is indeed a very rich source of controversies (including artificiality, or not, of its known derivations), but — despite giving place to a phase velocity (de Broglie material wave) violating its own essence — it is right. What is wrong is our limited interpretation based on ordinary observations (up-to-date possible measurements), ignoring the Planck's vacuum (experimentally proved), the ultimate nature of massless elementary electrical charges — acquiring mass from the surroundings (Higgs boson) — as well as its close relation with quantum mechanics (de Broglie periodicity as a statistical manifestation of the quantum wave packet). All that intricacies are simplified in the mathematically established concept of space-time; technically, enough to discover new physical facts (e.g., de Broglie duality) and, among other things, calculate time differences (due to the kinematics) between atomic clocks at rest and moving (Hafele-Keating experiment). Among the controversies, one verifies that nobody have been explained (satisfactorily) why the Lorentz transformations can be derived from two-antagonist point of view. The first is that of Lorentz-Poincaré (Maxwell equations must obey the principle of relativity, so, apparently more physical), and the second is the Einstein’s approach (principle of relativity plus invariance of the light speed; at first sight, artificial). The antagonism refers to the fact that the first is based in the existence of a preferred referential frame for radiation (rejected) and the second not (accepted). Nevertheless, it must be pointed that both approaches (giving the same Lorentz transformations) refer to the ultimate behavior of radiation, so both are not artificial. The question to be posed is then: The radiation implicit in the motion of a free particle comes from?

An attempt to understand how these facts are related is briefly outlined in my paper “On the Quantum-Relativistic Behavior of Moving Particles”.

Article On the Quantum-Relativistic Behavior of Moving Particles

Lorentz's Transformations are mathematical equations. A mathematical equation answers to only one logic and it cannot satisfy at the same time two opposite logics that are:

1. absence of ether and costancy of the speed of light

2. presence of ether and non-costancy of the speed of light.

Mathematics teaches us that if an equation or any relation, that represents a mathematical model of a physical process, satisfies two opposite logics, it must be necessarily wrong.

Dear Anatoly,

The Lorentz covariance, as a key property of spacetime following from the special theory of relativity, is disputed by the brilliant Oleg Jefimenko.

He found that the *exact* Lorentz Transforms are found by *solely* considering the retardation of electromagnetic fields of an E-M system (i.e. a Lorentz force) from this first frame upon the mass of another system.

You might not be aware of the fact that SRT is just a mathematical derivation without any physical substantiation. Its interpretation was wrongly sustaining during several decades that mass would increase with velocity.

Hence, the SRT interpretation is questioned, for the alleged variability of mass, length and time, with velocity. Only in the case of transmitted E-M fields, these changes can be physically substantiated.

One of the consequences is that time is not intrinsically changing with speed, but only the clocks will show other tick rates, depending from its exact mechanic or electromagnetic structure and the clock's orientation wrt to the velocity.

The claims are very well founded by Jefimenko's rigorous book on Electromagnetism and Relativity, see annexed link.

https://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Retardation-Theory-Relativity-Classical/dp/0917406249/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

I have great respect for serious researchers and Jefimenko is a serious researcher. He introduced in its Relativistic Electromagnetism the concept of relativistic charge density that he derived by Lorentz's Transformations: r=ro/SQRT(1-v2/c2) that has nevertheless all problems that are present in SR. That relativistic charge density has no physical meaning but derives from the relativistic change of the spacetime, like all physical quantities in SR. In TR a relativistic charge density exists but it is connected with the concept of cut flux that is the only physical phenomenon that generates changes in the electromagnetic field because of the speed. This relativistic charge density is connected with Lorentz's force and here there is an analogy with Jefimenko's theory.

Thierry De Mees,

" ... SRT is just a mathematical derivation without any physical substantiation. Its interpretation was wrongly sustaining during several decades that mass would increase with velocity."

Mass has been a fundamental indefinable property in the sense that it has never been defined in terms of pre-existing properties. I work with a defined mass. It is defined in terms of pre-existing  properties. (Force is also defined in terms of pre-existing  properties.) There are no other cases like mine that I am aware of.

The defined mass increases with velocity in a gravitational field. (I use gravitational field in the traditional sense to avoid adding complication so that attention may be focused on mass and its dependency on a conditional relative velocity, i.e., gravitational field.) In other words, if an object has a velocity relative to the Earth's gravitational field, that object's mass will increase as measured by a stationary observer. The defined mass allows for just one kind of mass. Whether called rest mass or relativity mass, there is no separation of kind, and, it does increase. 

Daniele  Sasso

"Mathematics teaches us that if an equation or any relation, that represents a mathematical model of a physical process, satisfies two opposite logics, it must be necessarily wrong."

As in the case of the Special Relativity solution of the Lorentz transforms where each of two observers is simultaneously at rest and traveling.

The Lorentz transforms mean that the speed of light varies.

The Lorentz Transforms initial conditions are the minimum number of conditions required to derive them. Their meaning is established by the initial conditions governing the form of their initial equations. The minimum number of conditions is three:

!. There is a first observer at rest with respect to the origin of the light;

2. There is a second observer moving away from the first observer with a velocity v;

3. The light's velocity is in line with and in the same direction as the velocity of the second observer. The light may be moving away in other directions, but, the second observer's relative velocity applies in a single direction. The light is also traveling in that direction. The problem to be solved is: What changes to his clock and his meter stick must occur in order that he measure the speed of light, which is less than C, to be C?

The Lorentz transforms supply the solution as two effects, one to the clock's rate of ticking, and, one to the meter stick. The clock's rate of ticking slows in accordance with the effect called 'time'-dilation. The meter stick shrinks in accordance with the effect called Length-contraction. Empirical evidence supports the material occurrence of both effects. 

Empirical evidence supports the condition that both observers will measure the speed of light to be C. Empirical evidence supports the condition that the speed of light is not C for the second observer. There is no contradiction. The unmolested clock and meter stick of the observer at rest are accurately representing what the light speed is in the reference frame that is general to the problem as a whole. That is to say that the point of origin of the light determines the reference frame that is general to the problem as a whole.

The environmental condition for the problem is that the light leaves a stationary point of origin and travels away from that point at the speed of C with no dependency upon what nearby objects are doing. The stationary point of origin of the light establishes the frame where 'being stationary' or 'being at rest' apply. The speed of light varies for the observer in relative motion, and, would vary with multiple magnitudes for any number of observers with different relative velocities with respect to the point of origin of the light. The Lorentz transforms mean that the speed of light varies. Measuring the speed as C is not the same as the speed of light being C. The local measurement of the speed of light is invariant, but, the speed of light varies. 

The Michelson-Morley experiment proves ether and absolute reference frame don't exist. It doesn't prove the speed of light is constant with respect to all reference frames. This is the new interpretation of that experiment in TR. In the Theory of Reference Frames the question of light is solved considering the physical speed of light and the relativistic speed of light.

The physical speed is the universal constant c, and it represents the speed of light with respect to the reference frame in which light is generated and after propagates (I call it "preferred reference frame").

The relativistic speed is a variable speed and it represents the relative speed between the physical speed of light and the speed of any reference frame moving with respect to the preferred reference frame.

The relativistic speed of light is obtained through vector composition of the physical speed and of the relative speed between the two reference frames.

In experimental processes light is always referred to the preferred reference frame of the apparatus of measure and consequently the result of experiment is always the physical speed.

Daniele Sasso : “The Michelson-Morley experiment proves ether and absolute reference frame don't exist.”

More exactly, I would say: a null result proves nothing general. It only allows to observe that *at the measured places* (almost) nothing has been measured.

Hence, one can hypothesize that either ether *or* an absolute reference frame doesn't exist. However, these options are not mutually excluding.

One of the possible answers is that at the Earth's surface, the speed of ether or of the local reference frame is zero.

James Putnam : “The defined mass increases with velocity in a gravitational field.”

This is a misconception. Already in Einstein's 1905 paper, there is a distinction of the “longitudinal mass” and the “transversal mass”.

In reality, there is no possible anisotropic mass increase because mass is considered a scalar.

In http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-04-04_NutshellReadMore.html it is written: “...some people hear the words "mass increases" and think that particles are getting heavier in the gravitational sense. In fact, it is more accurate to say that inertia increases as velocity increases.”

Also this alleged situation is false, because of the equivalence principle.

The only thing that happens is a gravitational anisotropy, and this has been proven in Prof. Oleg Jefimenko's excellent book: “Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity”, chapter 8.

The gravity field about the masses become anisotropic, but the masses remain identical.

https://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Retardation-Theory-Relativity-Classical/dp/0917406249/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

SR does exhibit length contraction and time dilation but only for a limited part of physics. Since the reference frames must be inertial, it doesn't apply in any case where there is significant acceleration so whenever there are large masses or gravitational fields.

Daniele Sasso: "[Jefimenko] introduced in its Relativistic Electromagnetism the concept of relativistic charge density that he derived by Lorentz's Transformations"

Yes, but attention: when Jefimenko writes "relativistic" wrt his work, one should read: the result of the Maxwell equations, including the retardation of the fields with the speed "c".

Indeed, Maxwell's equations cannot be used straight away for distant situations between source and receptor.

For gravity, it is the result by the Lorentz Transformations outcome that are obtained when considering the retardation of the fields between two reference frames, of which one is moving.

This outcome was found in Jefimenko's “Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity”, chapter 8. He checks the result of an E-M event, seen by another reference frame and finds the *exact* Lorentz Transformations.

It explains how one can come to the SRT equations, after having found the Lorentz Transformations. However, he explains in the same book why the SRT interpretations should be strongly revised and corrected.

So, some of the equations of chapter 8 are not part of Heaviside-Jefimenko's theory, but just explain where the SRT equations come from in a causal interpretation.

He shows that the Lorentz Transformations are perfectly causal in the example he used, and that the interpretation which SRT exhibits is not correct.

Indeed, SRT's main problems are the non-causality and therefore, the alleged reciprocity.

Dear Sirs,

I am interested in the experiments directly measuring time dilation and length contraction. Could you give me these references. These experiments will support Lorentz transformations which seems (along with its derivation) to me very strange.

Dear Anatoly,

Experiments directly measuring time dilation (cumulative phenomenon) involve atomic clocks (particles running at the light speed inside). The best-known are:

1. Hafele-Keating ( Hafele, J. C.; Keating, R. E. (July 14, 1972). "Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains". Science. 177 (4044): 166–168).

2. GPS (Global Positioning System). If the relativistic time correction (kinetic plus gravitational) is not included, at the end of a day the error in the calculated position will be on the order of a dozen kilometers.

Experiments to directly measure length contraction (a non-cumulative phenomenon), considering the current state of technology, is very difficult (to not say impossible). Moreover, remember that in the co-moving frame of the body there is no contraction. The arm of the Michelson-Morley apparatus in the direction of the earth motion does not presents contraction for a terrestrial observer (Despite having been suggested by Fitzgerald as well as by Lorentz in his first approach).

Thierry De Mees, the Michelson-Morley experiment was thought and performed numerous times, also with numerous variants, in order to prove just the existence of ether and it gave always negative result. I assume that historical result.

The Lorentz Transformations have been demonstrated in different ways, but always starting from an initial point that necessarily had to lead to those equations:

1. Lorentz and Poincaré demonstrated LT starting from length contraction and local time

2. Einstein demonstrated them starting from the Postulate of the Constancy of the Speed  of Light

3. Minkowski demonstrated them starting from the linear element ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2-c2dt2 and applying then the invariance of the speed of light

4. Jefimenko demonstrated them starting from Maxwell's equations and assuming in these  equations the speed of light is invariant with respect to different reference frames.

It is manifest that all demonstrated LT starting from the invariance of c, except Lorentz and Poincaré who instead started directly from length contraction and local time.

I see always the same error of starting in all those mathematical demonstrations. Anyway I think everyone is free to accept scientific theories that he prefers and I have no intention to impose my views. At last I like much your reference to longitudinal mass and to transversal mass, that many frequently forget, and to the fact that mass is a scalar.

Dear Anatoly, thanks for your question.I know no experiment that is able to prove directly the length contraction. With regard to time dilation, SR supporters would answer it has been proved in GPS (a component of delay is kinetic), but that delay can be explained very well making use of concepts of TR. I can advice you the paper: "Quantum Properties of Gravitational Field and Synchronization Delays". I observe I agree substantially with Fernando Ogiba's answer.

Best regards.

Anatoly  --  See Wikipedia under "length contraction" & the paragraph headed "Experimental verification." It mentions the extended path path of muons in earth's atmosphere. From the frame of the muon our atmosphere appears compressed which shortens its time of passage which from the standpoint of the earth frame appears to extend it's half life by orders of magnitude. But in the muons' frame, its half-life is the same as for an earth muon at rest.

Anatoly

“…I am interested in the experiments directly measuring time dilation and length contraction. Could you give me these references. These experiments will support Lorentz transformations…”

- the length contraction of rigid arms of the Michelson-Morley interferometer was measured near 150 years ago; and this experiment was repeated a huge number times.

But in all these experiments just the length of concrete material rigid bodies [the arms] were, of course, measured, when the special relativity postulates that if something move inertially, then whole Matter’s 3D  (seems – a rubber space) [rather probably] infinite space becomes be contracted by some mystic reason; and the contracted space at that contracts correspondingly by some mystic way the lengths of all objects inside, i.e. in whole Matter;

 – when the 3D space of an other something, which is at rest, remains simultaneously be unchanged.

Of course this evidently strange “relativistic effect” doesn’t exist and so there are no and cannot be principally of direct measurements of just the “space contraction”, though only such experiments could be real tests just of the SR, since this theory only in this point [the space contraction instead of bodies’ lengths contraction]  differs from the aether Lorentz theory.

Analogously there weren’t – and, of course cannot be, experiments where the fantastic “time dilations” were measured, when there are  a huge number of experiments where measured the slowing down of internal processes rates in concrete unstable particles, which by this reason live longer then if being at rest.

“…These experiments will support Lorentz transformations which seems… to me very strange.”

- there is nothing strange in the Lorentz transformations and in the “relativistic dynamics” as well – if somebody understands that Matter’s spacetime is absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime/ empty container, where all/every material objects simultaneously move with absolute 4D speeds of light in the 4D sub-spacetime and in 1D “true time” [5-th spacetime’s dimension] dimension. Provided this fact further to obtain the Lorentz transformation [and the main equations of the dynamics] is enough to know only the Pythagoras theorem.

See also SS post on 3-rd and 4-th  pages here.

Cheers

Dear Fernando Ogiba,

Many thanks for very interesting article.

I have the other question. It seems to me Lorentz transformations only  shows a change of moving inertial frame: coordinate axis contraction and clock dilation. Is it true? Why do we talk about other objects, like rods, object of natural world? Could someone comment it?

James Langworthy,

"SR does exhibit length contraction and time dilation but only for a limited part of physics. Since the reference frames must be inertial, it doesn't apply in any case where there is significant acceleration so whenever there are large masses or gravitational fields."

Special Relativity is an interpretation from one point of view applied to the Lorentz Transforms. Whether one accepts that interpretation is a matter of choice and not a matter of physics empirical evidence. Stationary reference frames are inertial, that is correct. However, empirical evidence consists of patterns of acceleration of objects. In the simple two observer example from which the Lorentz transforms are derived, the solution, repeated for incremental changes of velocity with respect to time, applies to accelerated conditions. In other words the Lorentz transforms, fitted to the predicted conditions of the gravitational field at any level, can be integrated with respect to time to sum up the final conditions for any location in a gravitational field. There are two things for readers, particularly Relativists, to take into consideration. You don't have a definition for mass and you can't explain what gravity is without it. I did not ask what the effects of gravity are. I did not ask for indirect relative definitions of mass. 

 Thierry De Mees,

"James Putnam : “The defined mass increases with velocity in a gravitational field.”

This is a misconception. Already in Einstein's 1905 paper, there is a distinction of the “longitudinal mass” and the “transversal mass”.

In reality, there is no possible anisotropic mass increase because mass is considered a scalar.'

Hi Thierry, 

I won't say that everything you have mentioned is no longer relevant. I would have to know everything to say that. But, I can say that the ideas theorists have put forward over at least a hundred plus years do not appear to be relevant. I say this because for all those years mass has been arbitrarily made part of a theory. Here is the reason why. There are three fundamental indefinable properties from which all other properties of mechanics are definable. One of those indefinable properties is mass. Mass has not, until I did it, ever been defined. In other words, it has never been explained. Its units of kilograms have never been defined. They are the sole representative of mass in physics equations. 

My point is that mass has, since its introduction, been substituted for by a theoretical 'mass', the theory being that mass is fundamentally indefinable. From that point on, theorists have practically had a free hand to speculate about mass, even to work with circular definitions of it, so long as they respect that their equations must accurately mimic the patterns of changes of velocities of objects which is physics empirical evidence. The patterns make the predictions. The theories often only misguide humans leaving the equations to very often make accurate predictions about patterns in changes of velocities of objects.  

When I said that that mass increases with velocity through a gravitational field, it was not perfectly correct, but, if one assigns the velocity to be horizontal to the planet in question, then it is correct to say that mass increases along the direction of the given velocity according to this: Mass is now a defined property. It is now known what mass is. Mass is no longer available for theorists to guess about and to take out of our observable world for its answers. It is the case that I did not include a definition of mass, but I did refer to my use of a defined mass.

If it is not yet clear, this is what the circumstance for today's physics is: None of the researchers who have investigated and speculated about mass in the past, knew what mass was. They were always working with an unexplained property. For the sake of making this case clear, it matters not whether my definition of mass is correct, nothing changes the physics fact that mass has officially been a fundamentally indefinable property always. Theorists could come no closer, if it even was closer, than to use words like your " ...considered ... ". My response to the question is no dependent upon past speculative research. 

For readers who were educated in physics after the uninformative words primary and secondary were substituted in physics texts for the informative words indefinable and definable, here is the standard which a definition of a property in physics must meet:

A physics blast from the past:

I quote from:   

College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

"1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

"A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured.  Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the  definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be  expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics. 

"In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ... "

"Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, onlt three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ... "

What is mass? The point of the question is that you don't know what mass is! Do you? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_mass_The_point_of_the_question_is_that_you_dont_know_what_mass_is_Do_you [accessed Sep 13, 2016].

Anatoly A Khripov,

"I have the other question. It seems to me Lorentz transformations only shows a change of moving inertial frame: coordinate axis contraction and clock dilation. Is it true? Why do we talk about other objects, like rods, object of natural world? Could someone comment it?"

That is what that the Lorentz transforms address, but, it is not the complete analysis. We talk about meter sticks, or rods, and clocks because measurements must be made, or appear to be made, in order to connect empirical evidence to the analysis for support. The conversation that never ends includes references to rods and clocks as if their nature is what matters most. The reason for this stretch of importance is that we must argue back and forth whether or not the rods are measuring space and whether or not the clocks are measuring time. Please understand that Relativists need the answer to be space and time. For those of us who do not subscribe to Relativity theory, the rod and the clock measure the same things that make up empirical evidence. Empirical evidence consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects. I find only that rods and clocks make measurements that pertain only to object length and object activity. My meaning for the word object is: An object is something that can be caused to change its velocity. 

Einstein`s derivation of Lorentz transformation is formal, artificial, as seems to me. What is the physical meaning of the derivation? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein_s_derivation_of_Lorentz_transformation_is_formal_artificial_as_seems_to_me_What_is_the_physical_meaning_of_the_derivation#57d86f61ed99e19130262806 [accessed Sep 13, 2016].

Dear Daniele: "It is manifest that all demonstrated LT starting from the invariance of c, except Lorentz and Poincaré who instead started directly from length contraction and local time."

I would say: 1) the most causal explanation is the most reliable, hence, your case 4 of Jefimenko.

2) Jefimenko doesn't define c as being invariant, but he defines "the speed of light" as being "c", just as is done in E-M.

The same as one does when one measures the speed of sound. However, at this stage, the variations of "c" have not been analyzed by mainstream, except very locally.

James Putnam: I agree with you that mainstream's mass definition is a mess. And indefinable indeed doesn't necessarily means non-existent. When one constructs causal physics, it will make a chain of causalities, and sooner or later, one comes to unities that cannot easily be defined.

But just that doesn't diminish the validity of the chain of experimentally substantiated causal physics.

Mass is invariable as long as the opposite has not been proven, and I gave the reasons why only the gravity fields are affected: it is by the retardation of the fields by the speed of light, as first found by Maxwell (I think).

Relativity is another story. It is non-causal. Mainstream adapt their stories as soon as there is an issue and they do this since 100+ years. They can make a whole ancient Greek myth of it and cook as much they need.

What about this one:

Take the Twin-paradox. According to special relativity theory (SRT), one can inverse the moving and the non-moving reference frame (RF.) Indeed, nobody can ever say which RF is moving and which is not, and no twin can ever be older than the other.

Relativists say that's not true, but they then relay upon the story where one of the twins has accelerated for a while, then decelerated, and than came back by accelerating and by decelerating again.

What has that to do with SRT? Nothing! Accelerations and decelerations are out of the scope of SRT, and so, the twin paradox is smoke.

The same happens with mass. Mainstream contradicts itself over the years. Still, mass is invariant just as charge. Only the gravity fields change with speed and become anisotropic.

By the way, if you want to read a good book, please take Jefimenko's brilliant book “Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity”. In chapter 8, he has proven that the Lorentz Transformations are the result of the retardation of the fields by “c”.

He did this by using an E-M event between two RF of which one is uniformly moving. By calculating the result from the emitting frame to the receptor frame, he exactly found the Lorentz Transformations (sic!), identical as Einstein's.

Hence, the *exact* equations, which Einstein found the non-causal way, were be found by applying the E-M event between two RFs. Hence, with the correctly found the Lorentz Transformations, the causal way, we still can remain in causal physics by applying it!

Very important to notice: At this stage, all the maths were still effectuated in the frame of Maxwellian E-M and inertial dynamics.

It directly results from it, that "time dilation" is reinterpreted as "clock frequency decrease". When Jefimenko does the test between two reference frames with an E-M clock, he even gets the possibility of different resulting equations of retarded clock frequencies, depending from the construction of the clock and the axis of the velocity.

Now, let's go for the gravitational part.

We know that Newton's gravity is incomplete because (radially) moving masses are not included in his gravity.

Oliver Heaviside's suggestion (in 1893) to apply the equations of Maxwell for gravity allows to interpret the motion of masses as being creating a second field, magnetic-like. This approach results in many successful explanations, as has theoretically proven by Jefimenko (around 2000), and by myself for cosmic events: supernovae and hourglasses' shapes, asteroid belt statistics, muon lifetime interpretation, jets, disc galaxies, etc, etc.

Based upon the gravity formulation, entirely compatible with the Lorentz Transformations as well, clocks made of charge-neutral matter can be analyzed as well. Relativists elude the question what happens with pendulum clocks, but here, we have a correct tool to calculate each situation.

Jefimenko's genius solution of retarded fields and potentials by “c”, extends the validity of the corrected interpretation to applications in the real world with (moving) masses and charges.

Therefore, the interpretation connects to the fields of charges and masses as references, just as with E-M and with Newtonian gravity (however incomplete) and -dynamics. Bodies (and their Newtonian gravity field) are the reference field for motion in Heaviside's gravitomagnetism.

Dear Sirs,

Maybe I lost in your discussion. But I asked for the following question. The Lorentz transformations tells us that that moving REFERENCE SYSTEM is changing so that the light speed is constant: coordinate x axis  is contracted and the clock connected to the moving reference system is delayed.

WHY are OBJECTS OF REAL WORLD contracted and the some other watches/processes (not of reference frame ones) are delayed? Where is this transition from the moving reference system to the WORLD living in this moving reference system, e.g. in spacecraft?

Anatoly,

“…WHY are OBJECTS OF REAL WORLD contracted and the some other watches/processes (not of reference frame ones) are delayed?…”

- nothing happen with the other real World outside a rigid system of material objects, including outside some reference frame, which is a set of rules and spatially separated and specially synchronized clocks that are some material objects also  and constitute a rigid system also, if this system moves in the absolute Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with some 3D spatial speed.

However inside the system indeed all clocks tick slower in 1/gamma times, rules are contracted in 1/gamma times also, but, since all system is contracted 1/gamma times, all spatial measurements' results inside the system are as they were when the system was at rest.

But, again – all that happens inside the system only and so, e.g. - spatial [virtual as a rule] “contracted” axes of the coordinate system of the reference frame have a sense only inside the system; and even inside the system nothing happens with the real 3D space of Matter’s spacetime.

Why that is so – see SS posts above and papers in the posts’ links. Again – all is very simple; to understand the kinematics and the dynamics of moving bodies is enough to know the Pythagoras theorem…

Cheers

Anatoly: "The Lorentz transformations tells us that that moving REFERENCE SYSTEM is changing so that the light speed is constant"

No, in fact it is the special relativity interpretation that says such a thing.

However, as I explained, the Lorentz Transformations between two reference frames can be explained causally, by starting with the delay of propagation of light by the speed "c". See the work of Jefimenko I referred to.

As I explained, when one constructs an simple electromagnetic clock, say, a vibrating electron between two charges, the retardation of the transmitted fields causes that the number of tick change with speed, but not necessary according to Einsteins time equation.

This is because the type of clock construction causes the delay in one or the other way.

Hence, real objects are not contracted, delayed etc, only the fields that are transmitted.

Ask a relativist what happens with a pendulum. He will elude your question, because changing time with speed is clock-dependent, not an inherent value.

James Putnam  --  I'm quite aware that SR is applied outside its sanctioned use but since using inertial frames is required, use outside this requirement must be justified by other means. The main effect of the requirement to use only inertial frames is that the theory can't be disproved by bringing in these unsanctioned effects: acceleration or gravity fields.

James Langworthy,

I never doubted that you already know far more than is being communicated in these short messages. I tend to write for readers in general so that they may follow the discussions. Your messages have my respect and appreciation. 

Dear Sirs!

Is proton lengthen when it runs with the light speed? Or bigger molecules like water ones? Could you give the references? Are there any PHOTOS :):):):). I read that it is  principally impossible to make the photograph of LT length contraction. Is it so? Therefore SR theory is directly not checked... :(

1. I ask for the question from general relativity. Einstein says the gravitation is a curvature of space-time continuum. I have a question.

RELATIVE TO WHAT is this curvature? Relative to Euclid geometry? If so then what is straight line and so on. We get in closed circuit. Isn`t it? Any comments?

2. The other thought that is Euclid geometry is not true in two moving inertial systems if the systems made of matter (it has a mass!). So Einstein derivation  of SR is for free space and for weightless reference system.

But again do we know that 2 postulates are satisfied in free space? Who checked it? Maybe astronauts at International Space Station now? I mean who checked that physics laws are invariant to LT in free space?

3. What is applicability range of SR in real world? Or it is just a thoughtful experiment????

``I read that it is principally impossible to make the photograph of LT length contraction. Is it so?''

No, it is not true. Assume a rod is flying at, say, 0.6 c along the x axis, and is one meter long in its own rest frame. Assume you have a series of lasers at rest on the x axis, and a photographic plate, with the rod coming between the lasers and the plate. If, when the rod passes, the lasers fire simultaneously, the photograph on the plate will be found to be 80 cm. long.

If you have a single camera, there are difficulties in interpreting the photos it makes. That is what is meant when one says that LT cannot be photographed. It is an attempt to mislead. The experiment I stated would certainly lead to measuring a shortening.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is ordinarily seen as an experimental proof of the shortening effect: if there were no shortening, then fringes would be measured. But the whole edifice of relativity is very logically constrained (which is why  there are fools saying it is contradictory). To remain free from contradiction, all elements of relativity must be there at the same time:

1) length contraction

2) time dilation

3) clock desynchronisation

on purely logical grounds, any evidence for one of the above three phenomena is evidence for the other 2. And there is plenty of evidence for 2 and 3. Wikipedia Special Relativity will provide you with ample information.

The important thing is that a rod of 1m has always the same length (1m) whether when it is at rest or when it is in motion with respect to its reference frame. What you would see or better would calculate, from different inertial reference frames in relative motion, has just an aleatory value that depends on the physico-mathematical model that you use. The thing would have scientific significance if the moving rod could have different length with respect to the resting rod in the its own reference frame.

"The Michelson-Morley experiment is ordinarily seen as an experimental proof of the shortening effect".

It is aberrant and revolting that such fallicious reasonings are made out of a null-result.

The non-causality of SRT is related to such reasonings.

However, one of the MMX outcomes is also that the locally-absolute velocity frame on Earth is zero, or the aether speed is zero.

What you call ether, for me is Earth's reference frame that coincides with the reference frame of the apparatus of measurement of M.M. Only under this hypothesis the relative speed v is zero.

Anatoly> The essense of Lorenz transformation as derived by Einstein (from 2 principles) is to justify the constant light velocity.

In my opinion: no, No, NO!!!

What is important is the realization that Lorentz symmetry is valid for all kinds of matter, not only light (the Maxwell equations), and the consequences that follows from this. Like light, the wave equation for sound also has a Lorentz symmetry (with the speed of light replaced by the speed of sound). But, since matter does not obey the same symmetry, nobody can use that fact to anything serious.

Kare, I don't think you aim to be the author of the third postulate of the Theory of Relativity: the postulate of the Constancy of the Speed of Sound.

 Dear  F. Leyvraz,

Could you or any other provide the references with photographs of contracted rod? Or your method is not so simple? Could you comment?

Daniele> I don't think you aim to be the author of...

No, because Nature obviously does not agree.  And, when you start thinking seriously about how vacuum polarization work, it becomes quite obvious that the speed of light cannot be exactly constant either. In the presence of matter (like water), it is of course different. But even in empty space, if the space is curved, the speed of light should change -- due to change in vacuum polarization. But the effect is so incredibly small in normal environments that one may just as well forget about it.

In Nature and in physics there is the concept of "vacuum" that means absence of matter and of energy. Postmodern physics then has invented the concept of "quantum vacuum" that is a vacuum that would create virtual pairs of particle-antiparticle from statistical fluctuations of a background electromagnetic field. Those particles-antiparticles would have shortest average life, but it doesn't exclude they would be real. In substance the "quantum theory of vacuum" theorizes a vacuum that isn't vacuum and it would be due to statistical fluctuations of the background e.m. field. In order to generate a pair electron-positron it needs an energy at least of 1.02MeV that in particle physics cannot be considered a statistical fluctuation around the zero point of energy. That concept of "quantum vacuum" isn't convincing for me and to that end I did researches on the Casimir effect, that would be the main experimental test of "quantum vacuum" and of its polarization. I have found the Casimir effect can be explained very well in the order of the gravitational theory after having produced physical vacuum between the two plates (see "Gravitational Theory of the Casimir Effect: from the Virtual Quantum Vacuum to the Deterministic Physical Vacuum").

Daniele, Casimir effect is not the main experimental test of vacuum fluctuations. In my opinion, the (earlier discovered) Lamb shift is a better one. There are distinctions between vacuum fluctuations and vacuum energy; one of them is that observable phenomena at some space-time resolution are little influenced by much faster fluctuations.

As for the absolute energy-momentum tensor in the quantum vacuum, there is one (seemingly infinite) contribution which is impossible calculate in quantum field theory. At best, finite corrections due to the presence of matter, can be calculated (with some implicit assumptions). Vacuum energy is a perverse quantity, because it seems to depend on the behavior at arbitrary short and fast scales, which we otherwise have no means to access.

Sorry Anatoly, for this very large departure from the topic of your question.

It is true, Kare, we are moving away from the initial question and therefore this is my last comment on these problems whose discussion however we can continue in other dedicate questions.

I read in Wikipedia: " The existence of a vacuum without energy would contradict the Indeterminacy Principle". The logical consequence of that statement would be that a vacuum devoid of energy cannot be exist. From my viewpoint and from the viewpoint of my theoretical physical research that statement has no meaning because the criticism of the Indeterminacy Principle is one of fundamentals of my research (see "Basic Principles of Deterministic Quantum Physics"). I read always in Wikipedia the Lamb shift repesents a small difference of energy between the two energy levels 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 of hydrogen atom. In the paper, before cited, I have demonstrated the Lamb shift regards all energy levels and not only those two levels. It is due in actuality to the relativistic variation of electron mass that in concordance with the Theory of Reference Frames is given by m=mo(1-v2/2c2).

This exchange of views has been a pleasure.

Regards.

Einstein's "special" Relativity is dominated by a very definite aim : To insure consensus among all the mutually inertial human observers of – both – electromagnetic and mechanical macroscopic phenomena. This aim has led him to what is called the Lorentz-Einstein laws of [transformation of the assignations of space-and-time coordinates of an observed event when one passes from one inertial observer to another one] (instead of the Galileo-Newton transformations). He introduced this modification  on the basis of a very remarkable analysis of observability of "simultaneity" between events observable by all the mutually inertial observers and observed by these via sending and registering light-signals of which the speed was POSTULATED to be a numerical invariant.

The major breakthrough introduced by Einstein's Special Relativity has been the notion of absence of mutual independence between the space coordinates and the time coordinate, inside any given referential. While the main weakness of this theory is the impossibility to define inside it a general consensual concept of causality. 

This weakness is likely to have triggered Einstein's aim to construct his General Relativity. There certain results are consensually asserted by all the macroscopic observers of macroscopically observable mechanical phenomena tied with gravitational fields (all agree that the trajectories of the observed macroscopic mobiles are geodesics of the POSTULATED contextual space-time structure assigned to the commonly observed mobile, inside his own referential, by any given observer ; while furthermore also a general concept of causality can be constructed. 

But inside this new framework space and time are treated as physical entities, which – in my own opinion defended elsewhere – is not acceptable. This opinion can be discussed, of course. But it seems difficult to contest that, when one considers Einstein's theories of Relativity, these bring into full evidence to what a degree any scientific theory, like any piece of "knowledge", is just a human representation that is irrepressibly determined by a certain choice of representational aims and by the human posits and the cognitive operations that have to be admitted or, respectively, accomplished in order to realize these aims.

A physical theory does not "describe the physical reality such as it truly is"; it expresses only results of physical and conceptual interactions between the human physicist, with his aims, his ways of perceiving, of thinking and of doing, and on the other hand, physical facts of which we posit the "existence" but of which the "intrinsic" way of being stays outside the reach of any theory: This last notion, though the words permit to spell it, is just a huge illusion.