Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 01/09/05
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- In reply to: jem: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Next in thread: jem: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Reply: jem: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:11:10 GMT
jem:
>Bilge wrote:
>> jem:
>>
>> >Remember this proposed definition? An inertial reference frame is a
>> >reference frame in which all stationary standard clocks tick at the same
>> >rate.
>>
>> Yes, I remember it. It's still circular and doesn't explain what
>> ``ticks at the same rate'' means.
>
>"Ticks at the same rate" means the number of ticks recorded on each
>clock is equal over every time interval. The comparison between any 2
>clocks is accomplished by sending signals from one to the other and
>comparing the rate of the received signal with the tick rate of the
>clock at the reception point. This comparison can be done without
>synchronizing the clocks (although synchronizing them at the onset would
>make an actual comparison easier).
>
>Where do you see circularity?
See the posts from the last time you made that suggestion.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!"
- In reply to: jem: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Next in thread: jem: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Reply: jem: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|