Difference between revisions of "A Reexamination of the Lorentz Transformation"

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Imported from text file)
 
(Imported from text file)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
==Abstract==
 
==Abstract==
  
Using a new form of linear transformation comparable to and including the Lorentz transformation, it is shown that, <em>ceteris paribus,</em> there is an infinity of forms of linear transformations comparable to the Lorentz transformation. In addition, an unsuspected flaw is revealed, namely that the so-called "Lorentz-invariant form" is incompatible with the postulates of the Special Relativity Theory (SRT). This throws strong doubt on the validity of the SRT.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
+
Using a new form of linear transformation comparable to and including the Lorentz transformation, it is shown that, <em>ceteris paribus,</em> there is an infinity of forms of linear transformations comparable to the Lorentz transformation. In addition, an unsuspected flaw is revealed, namely that the so-called "Lorentz-invariant form" is incompatible with the postulates of the Special Relativity Theory (SRT). This throws strong doubt on the validity of the SRT.
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Scientific Paper|reexamination lorentz transformation]]
  
 
[[Category:Relativity]]
 
[[Category:Relativity]]

Revision as of 10:02, 1 January 2017

Scientific Paper
Title A Reexamination of the Lorentz Transformation
Author(s) Shao-Zhi Xu, Xiang-Qun Xu
Keywords Lorentz transformation, Special Relativity, Lorentz-invariant form
Published 1992
Journal Galilean Electrodynamics
Volume 3
Number 1
Pages 5-8

Abstract

Using a new form of linear transformation comparable to and including the Lorentz transformation, it is shown that, ceteris paribus, there is an infinity of forms of linear transformations comparable to the Lorentz transformation. In addition, an unsuspected flaw is revealed, namely that the so-called "Lorentz-invariant form" is incompatible with the postulates of the Special Relativity Theory (SRT). This throws strong doubt on the validity of the SRT.