Was Newton right after all?
Philosophy of Science 26 (3):229-239 (1959)
| Abstract | Special relativity was based on the theorem that time is affected by motion. Einstein's proof of this was an imaginary experiment with clocks, using light as a synchronizing signal. He has said that the kind of signal was immaterial. Subsequent interpreters have stated that sound signals could just as well have been used. Today any airplane passenger's watch denies Einstein's mathematics, had he used sound. The Lorentz-Einstein transformation equations in which the speed of sound is substituted for the speed of light are unthinkable. But if they do not hold with sound as the signal, no more do they with light, for the process is identical. The transformation equations for space are based on the variability of time, and are therefore likewise denied | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesHarvey R. Brown & Adolfo Maia Jr (1993). Light-Speed Constancy Versus Light-Speed Invariance in the Derivation of Relativistic Kinematics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (3):381-407.
Robert DiSalle (1992). Einstein, Newton and the Empirical Foundations of Space Time Geometry. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (3):181 – 189.
Robert W. Latzer (1972). Nondirected Light Signals and the Structure of Time. Synthese 24 (1-2):236 - 280.
Abraham Ungar (1986). The Lorentz Transformation Group of the Special Theory of Relativity Without Einstein's Isotropy Convention. Philosophy of Science 53 (3):395-402.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads7 ( #133,381 of 549,012 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
