No, the statement’s just meaningless. The correct statement is that special relativity defines an equivalence relation among reference frames in spacetime: All reference frames that are related by a global Lorentz transformation are equivalent, and frames, that can’t be related by a global Lorentz transformation, are not.

Is it because of your lack of study?

The correct description is that it defines equivalence relations between frames of reference in space-time.

https://www.academia.edu/43893705/Inertial_frame_generated_by_differential_speed_of_light

If equivalence is the principle, momentum and energy are essential.

Stam Nicolis,

There is no reason to be bound by symmetry between hierarchies, excluding an absolutely stationary coordinate system.

Symmetry and invariance are different.

SRT is completely erroneous since it is based on the wrong kind of transformations: they have lost the scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect (which defines the asymmetry between approach and removal). First, Lorentz considered a more general form of transformations (with a scale factor), but then he, and also Poincare and Einstein equated it 1 without proper grounds. Their form was artificially narrowed, the formulas became incorrect. This led to a logical contradiction of the theory, to unsolvable paradoxes. Accordingly, GRT is also incorrect. For more details, see my brochure "Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory" (2000):

Preprint Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory

Dear Lev Verkhovsky,

Yes, I think so too.

Spontaneous invariant generation｜Hyama Natural Science Research Institute｜note

A similar phenomenon is the time crystal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal

Time crystals cannot occur in equilibrium (symmetry), but time crystals (asymmetry) can occur in non-equilibrium.

Originally, the principle of relativity is the principle (Galilean invariance) of the mystery of invariance that occurs in asymmetry.

“…No, the statement’s just meaningless. The correct statement is that special relativity defines an equivalence relation among reference frames in spacetime: All reference frames that are related by a global Lorentz transformation are equivalent, and frames, that can’t be related by a global Lorentz transformation, are not.…..”

Really that fundamentally isn’t correct – if all/every reference frames that are related by a global Lorentz transformation are absolutely completely equivalent, as that is postulated in the SR, from this any number of absurd consequences follow, the simplest is the Dingle objection to the SR.

From this fact completely rigorously by the completely rigorous “proof by contradiction” it follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and there can exist really preferred “absolute frames”, where the frames instruments, i.e. scaled rules and synchronized clocks, are at absolute rest in the 3D space of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),

- and were, i.e. in an absolute frame, all measured physical parameters of all material objects have real values.

That is another thing, that because of action the really extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle the Lorentz transformations are completely applicable between relatively moving frames in most cases in everyday physical practice, however that is true only if the moving in the absolute frame a moving frames’ instruments compose rigid enough system of bodies, what practically always happens on Earth, where the Earth gravity makes any system of bodies as a rigid system;

- and if a studied systems of bodies compose some rigid system as well.

If a system of a reference frame instruments isn’t rigid, it is simply really non-applicable as physical tool; if in a studied system its bodies are free, in this case measurement results even in a correct “Lorentzian” reference frame are wrong.

Correspondingly if measurements are made in rigid frames and of rigid systems, because of the relativity principle it is fundamentally impossible to observe any concrete inertial motion of the frame – and that is really unnecessary, so to any frame any velocity, V, can be assigned, utmost convenient, and so utmost applicable in physics, is the case when V=0 – “stationary frames”,

- however measurements in a “Lorentzian” frame of parameters of a free bodies systems allows to observe the absolute motion of this system and to measure of its velocity value and direction in the absolute 3D space above [and so to measure the Vf [“bold” means 3D space vector] of the frame], see a couple of proposed in yet 2013 and 2015 experiments in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible .

Another example of such situation is at measuring of “superluminal” motion of matter in distant quasars’ jets on Earth – when measured on Earth transverse speed of the matter in the jets turns out to be larger c at some angles; more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion

More about what is really mechanics of fast bodies, including – what really is the physical sense of Lorentz transformations, and what is the SR, including why and when application of the SR is correct despite of that the “discovered” in the SR the “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime and relativistic effects” are really fundamentally illusory the authors assumptions; and when and the SR isn’t correct [the examples see above], etc., see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko,

Your understanding of the principle of relativity is wrong.

The absolute frame debate is settled.

Rather, it is correct to draw Cartesian coordinates for each from the observer's reference.

That is the physics of Galileo and Kepler.

The principle of relativity (Galilean invariance) is based on the wonder that invariant systems are generated from asymmetric relative relations.

Preprint Time-light relativity theory

Shinsuke Hamaji,

My view of SR differs greatly from what almost all others believe. The M-M experiment was misunderstood. It did not disprove, or even contraindicate, the existence of a stationary preferred coordinate system. The M-M experiment demonstrated that expected changes in the interference patterns of light from rotating the apparatus were nearly exactly offset by corresponding changes in the physical apparatus itself. All material structures are held together electromagnetically at some level. This change in the physical apparatus is recognized as the Lorentz Contraction. The LC results from objects in motion seeking the same electromagnetic equilibrium that they had while at rest.

So, how do we understand SR? At the risk of seeming self-promoting, I have a link that shows how the basic SR transformation remains consistent with a preferred coordinate system. Link: Preprint The Egocentricity of Special Relativity

Briefly, SR consists of a real component factor and an error component factor. When the two factors are multiplied it produces the SR transform. If the observer is at rest then there is no error component (i.e. the factor equals one). Our inability to detect this preferred frame does not provide proof of its non-existence. If we postulate a preferred frame, then it follows that we must have SR due to the equilibrium requirement.

I hardly ever comment on SR because it seems tantamount to arguing religion. Personally, I view SR as little more than parlor-game mathematics. The accepted treatment of SR greatly inhibits one from theoretical views they might otherwise have.

Rich

Dear Richard Marker,

The MM experiment is the result of the aether wind not blowing under the absolute stationary coordinate system.

But if we remove the assumption of the absolute stationary coordinate system, the ether works differently.

I think that the aether produces the light velocity constancy phenomenon between asymmetric systems.

The Special Theory of Relativity covers it with the Special Relativity Principle and makes it irrelevant whether there is ether or not.

However, in reality, the speed of light changes at the boundary between systems.

Unaccounted-for transverse Doppler effect—i.e. the redshift of light source with zero radial and non-zero tangential velocity.[13] However, this cannot explain the similar anomaly in the ranging data.

Flyby anomaly - Wikipedia

Shinsuke Hamaji Hello, I also think that the complete symmetry in SRT gives rise to anomalies in this theory:

Article The Mechanical Behavior of a Multispring System Revealing Ab...

Yes . . . .

My personal research is based on the dynamics of special relativity, however several references in the literature also mention alternative dynamics. It has been proven that many dynamics can be formed, for example, for the kinematics of special relativity with non-constant symmetry. It's interesting to wonder if the given contradiction also applies to all possible general relativity dynamics. Additionally, some theoretical research may look into analysing the paradoxes that come from Einstein and Emmy Noether's overly strict symmetry-related failures utilising the new special relativity mathematical forms that my own PhD students have developed. Although there exist opposing theories for special relativity, future research may examine whether or not both special relativity and general relativity would be able to tolerate such disputes.