Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation
From: Tom Capizzi (tom.capizzi_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/11/05
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: GMP Theory"
- Maybe in reply to: Timo Nieminen: "Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Next in thread: Tom Roberts: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Reply: Tom Roberts: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:24:26 GMT
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1105380479.824927.275720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Bill, the reason I jumped on you is because
> of your suggestion for using an accelometer
> reading of zero to define an inertial CS,
> and that suggestion I found to be a good one
> at first glance. However, I gained a better
> understanding of the problem by taking a second
> look, something usually required in GR.
>
> One can easily create a scenario with two
> weightless (free-fall) spacetime coincident
> FoR's that are relatively accelerating,
> satellites in differing orbits for example.
>
> In GR that occurs when the classical G_uv=0,
> but the Riemann-Christoffel B^a_bcd =/=0.
> (I ref'd to AE's GR1916 Eq.(43)...)
>
> The LT and SR does not apply between relatively
> accelerating FoR's, inspite of each being
> inertial, is what I garnered from your suggestion,
> in a fairly clear way...that's a compliment.
>
> So after the detour we return to B^a_bcd =0
> required for LT and SR.
>
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker
>
Is it even appropriate to call the coordinate system of
a satellite inertial, even though it's in free fall and has
an accelerometer reading of zero? After all, it is still
constantly changing direction, even in a circular orbit
at constant speed. Isn't it still an accelerated coordinate
system?
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: GMP Theory"
- Maybe in reply to: Timo Nieminen: "Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Next in thread: Tom Roberts: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Reply: Tom Roberts: "Re: Lorentz transformations - a derivation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|