Re: Underestimating 'r'
- From: an588@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Catherine Woodgold)
- Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 13:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
Tim Tyler (tim@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> In a discussion of relativity, you would probably not argue
> that c doesn't necessarly represent the speed of light, and
> that it might just as well represent the mass of an object.
You've got me wrong. I'm exactly the sort of person
who might do so. :-) Furthermore, I probably have used "c"
to mean something else in a relativistic calculation
(and then realized the possible ambiguity afterwards,
but was able to keep it straight, possibly by using
capital C for the speed of light, and probably got the
right answer anyway.)
Here I go. I'm about to prove you wrong (about whether
I would make such an argument or not):
"c" doesn't necessarily represent the speed of light,
even in a relativistic calculation. As long as the
person writing out the argument makes it clear at
the top of the page what "c" represents on that page,
it's OK. Symbols are inherently arbitrary.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Underestimating 'r'
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Underestimating 'r'
- References:
- Underestimating 'r'
- From: Tim Tyler
- Underestimating 'r'
- Prev by Date: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Next by Date: Amusing bouts with the Cambrian Explosion
- Previous by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Next by thread: Re: Underestimating 'r'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|