Re: Relativistic Complex Analysis
- From: Tom Roberts <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:09:33 GMT
tontoko wrote:
This is, quite literally, the definition of the meter in terms of the second and a light beam.
I agree with that. So we can express time with meters. If we measure the point in space-time, say t = 5 meters (in time) and x = 3 meters (in space), then the Lorentz invariant is 5^2-3^2 = 16 (meter^2). It is decomposed as 16 = 4^2. I insist generally such decomposition is unavailable, i.e. the time measured by the unit of meter is always irrational. In this case we can never measure the time = 5 (meters).
This is physics, not math. Nothing is ever measured precisely.
We model space and time as continua, as we observe no quantization of them. So the math used is reals, not rationaals or integers. The proof is in the pudding, and reals permit differentiation which is absolutely essential in modern theories of physics.
Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx .
- References:
- Relativistic Complex Analysis
- From: tontoko
- Re: Relativistic Complex Analysis
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: Relativistic Complex Analysis
- From: tontoko
- Relativistic Complex Analysis
- Prev by Date: Re: Coriolis effect: Veer to the left, or veer to the right?
- Next by Date: Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- Previous by thread: Re: Relativistic Complex Analysis
- Next by thread: Re: Coriolis effect: Veer to the left, or veer to the right?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
