| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"KaliKinkar" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2005 09:32:36 AM |
| Object: |
k-calculus |
Can anyone please suggest some good stuff on explaining relativity with
the factor k and Bondi's k-calculus in general.
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
12 Jan 2005 09:48:07 AM |
|
|
"KaliKinkar" <kalikinkar@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1105543956.125361.265310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Can anyone please suggest some good stuff on explaining relativity with
the factor k and Bondi's k-calculus in general.
Perhaps you can look at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c9cb09a700ebdb4?dmode=source
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken S. Tucker" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
12 Jan 2005 03:50:32 PM |
|
|
Is that what you thought the question was?
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
12 Jan 2005 03:56:32 PM |
|
|
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1105566632.603226.322500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Is that what you thought the question was?
Do you always ask silly rhetorical questions?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KaliKinkar" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
13 Jan 2005 03:59:41 AM |
|
|
Perhaps you can look at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c9cb0...
Thanks for the help Dirk, it was very useful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
13 Jan 2005 05:06:04 AM |
|
|
"KaliKinkar" <kalikinkar@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1105610381.643769.131820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps you can look at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5c9cb0...
Thanks for the help Dirk, it was very useful.
It was just a little appetizer of course.
Here's some more:
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8956/Bondi/intro.htm
I haven't checked it completely, but it looks okay from
a safe distance :-)
Enjoy...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "KaliKinkar" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
13 Jan 2005 08:22:41 AM |
|
|
Dirk,
Thank you very much, once again.
I have got a small query regarding the previous discussion you had
regarding this. There we found written as
Clearly therefore, since the speed of the signal is constant, the
time
for each pulse to get from A to B will be less than the time it will
take to get back from B to A.
I am not able to understand this.
As it seems that when at the point the pulse hits B it returns from
that point instantaneously; in that case the time for each pulse to get
from A to B should be the same as the time it will take to get back
from B to A, so long we are measuring it with the same clock. Am I
right or wrong? Could you please comment.
Thank you once again for your help.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
13 Jan 2005 10:20:53 AM |
|
|
"KaliKinkar" <kalikinkar@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1105626161.363878.97260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk,
Thank you very much, once again.
I have got a small query regarding the previous discussion you had
regarding this. There we found written as
Clearly therefore, since the speed of the signal is constant,
the time for each pulse to get from A to B will be less than
the time it will take to get back from B to A.
I am not able to understand this.
This was written by John Marsden and it was wrong.
He should have written:.
Clearly therefore, since the speed of the signal is constant,
the time for each pulse to get from A to B, as measured
on A's clock, will be less than the time it will take to get
back from B to A as measured on B's clock.
As it seems that when at the point the pulse hits B it returns from
that point instantaneously; in that case the time for each pulse to get
from A to B should be the same as the time it will take to get back
from B to A, so long we are measuring it with the same clock. Am I
right or wrong? Could you please comment.
Thank you once again for your help.
Yes, you are right.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "KaliKinkar" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
14 Jan 2005 02:41:18 AM |
|
|
Thank you very much for your help once again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "KaliKinkar" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
13 Jan 2005 04:04:27 AM |
|
|
Thank you very much Dirk.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "KaliKinkar" |
|
| Title: Re: k-calculus |
13 Jan 2005 03:57:18 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the help Dirk, it was very useful.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Quantum Gravity 142.9: Causation As Instantaneous Rate of Change of Code and q-calculus
Hypothetical question about digging to the center of the earth - need Calculus guru!
Stochastic Calculus will make you crazy
revamping the teaching of the Calculus by using a geometrical explanation; Chord concept
Quantum Gravity 185.0: The Strange Case P(X --> Y = k) Yielding Calculus, Nonsmooth Analysis, q-Calculus, etc.
Calculus ONLY works for crude *APPROXiMATiONs*, of *UNknowns*. The Euclidian SPHERE is ALREADY *exactly* "derived", you Dimwit.!! The PROBLEM with Calculus is you HAVE to know a curve *exactly*, BEFORE HAND, in order to know any AREA under a curve, *
New Tensor Calculus Package for Mathematica
what is the reason that made newton to invent calculus?
| Basic, but subtle, calculus question. Please help a girl.
Re: new way of teaching the Limit in Calculus; infinity the inverse is 0; why Cantor transfinites are phony
Independent/Dependent Phases 29: Clifford Algebras, Spacetime Calculus
Newton's infinitesimal calculus
Is non-continous calculus needed for physics?
Difference equations, calculus, prime numbers
Re: Is my calculus right?
|
|
|
