Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 01/09/05
- Next message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: clash of the titans"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Relativity is not a theory about relative motion ?"
- 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 20:36:06 GMT
jem:
>Bilge wrote:
>> jem:
>> >Bill Hobba wrote:
>> >> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:sdSDd.25692$Q%4.10400@fed1read06...
>> >
>> >>>Remember this proposed definition? An inertial reference frame is a
>> >>>reference frame in which all stationary standard clocks tick at the same
>> >>>rate.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How do you sync those clocks?
>> >
>> >It's not necessary to synchronize clocks in order to compare their tick
>> >rates.
>>
>> Synchronizing clocks _is_ comparing their tick rates.
>>
>
>Not hardly. Synchronizing 2 clocks means setting them so that exactly
>one tick on each occurs simultaneously.
So, if I syncronize my watch with my wall clock and discover the
clocks don't read the same time a few weeks later, should I presume
relativity had something to do with it?
>Whether the clocks tick at the
>same rate can only be determined by testing whether subsequent clock
>ticks also occur simultaneously.
Whatever...
- Next message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: clash of the titans"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Relativity is not a theory about relative motion ?"
- 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
|