Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/15/05
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: error analysis"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Proof for E=mc2"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Next in thread: David McAnally: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Reply: David McAnally: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:14:13 GMT
"PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105793428.661938.290640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>"Proper length" gives the impression that there's really only
> one frame where length can be measured and that length is poorly
> defined in other frames. That's not the case.
That's for you to prove.
> It's semantics, I know, but it seems important somehow.
I don't care about sematics, use linear algebra.
Length of stationary rod, x.
Length of moving rod,
a) (x-vt)
or
b) (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) ?
Androcles.
- Next message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: error analysis"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Proof for E=mc2"
- In reply to: PD: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Next in thread: David McAnally: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Reply: David McAnally: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
