Re: SR consistency is crap.
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 11/20/04
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Bible Codes Resurrected?"
- Previous message: Tron99: "Re: Is this math test too easy?"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:36:27 -0500
Mike wrote:
> = (p1) - (p2)
THird Law force of action = force of reaction.
or dp_1/dt = -dp_2/dt hence dp_1/dt + dp_2/dt = 0 which implies
d(p_1 + p_2)/dt = 0 which implies p_1 + p_2 = const. That is your
conservation of momentum from the third law.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Bible Codes Resurrected?"
- Previous message: Tron99: "Re: Is this math test too easy?"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
