Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Le_pi=C3=A8ge_parfait_=28the_perfect_trap=29?= Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 08:40:49 +0200 Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net zGps94TJNlOyta+KxlhFAgjiPLO62NgETvDtKuqDilpWJmRB9A Cancel-Lock: sha1:vrgy9PQsB3kI7BkK5jjtGiXAi6w= sha256:hFeU5yEMtI8Op8ShzkjCBPiM0htIm4X4OfcSYlDfBCc= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:655075 Am Mittwoch000017, 17.07.2024 um 14:34 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen: ... >> >> Also the present mainstream consensus about this subject can be called >> 'SRT', but is different to what Einstein wrote. > > It is still the same one and only Special Theory of Relativity, > even if the math has evolved since 1905. > But there is nothing you can calculate from the metric, > which you can't calculate from the Lorentz transform in > "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". > >> >> There are also a number of other versions, which were created by >> people of minor importance, like e.g. also people participating in >> this forum. >> >> What exactly 'SRT' is, that is not cast in stone, but is a subject you >> could debate. >> ... > > The Special Theory of Relativity is precisely defined, > and there is no debate of what it is. > (Among reasonable knowledgeable people.) > You could regard as 'SRT' also the modern version(-s) of Einstein's origional theory. This would be the relations in 'flat' space, where objects fly in streigth lateral motion and non-accelerated objects. I would regard this interpretation of 'SRT' as perfectly possible, too. This is the 'special' case of GR, which covers accelerated FoRs. TH