Re: origin of inertia

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 03/14/05 

Date: 14 Mar 2005 15:03:25 -0800

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> <aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110831894.432040.57570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> > > But there is nothing to agree or disagree.
> > > All you have been saying was wrong. I have given you
> > > two formal proofs of your errors.
> > > I am telling you how it works, because you clearly
> > > haven't understood the very basics of what you think
> > > you are talking about.
> > > I am trying to *help* you to avoid embarrassing yourself.
> > > Of course, it is up to you to accept the help or reject it.
> > > If/when you change your mind, you can go back to my
> > > previous replies. The best attitude, is to wonder and
> > > ask questions where you don't understand something.
> >
> > Now this comment of yours goes beyond scientific discussion, and
> > towards more usual dismissive bull on this group, which actually
> > deserves no reply.
>
> But we can't reach a point of scientific discussion before
> you have some idea what you are talking about.
> I was trying to help you get some idea.
>
> Dirk Vdm

I'm having a problem following the approach
to this apparently simple problem.

Would it be easier to agree the invariant

ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v

is true and then in SR simplify it to,

ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx^2

When dx/dt = constant I think that will
integrate to (c=1),

s^2 = t^2 - x^2 = t'^2 - x'^2.

Anyway it's obvious when ds=0 then

dx/dt = 1 = dx'/dt' .

Suppose one were to set

dt' = dt/g where g is a constant then

dx' = dx/g .

Anyway that's how it's done in GR, I have
refs if anyone wants.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Relevant Pages
Quantcast