Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition)

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

> At 10:15 10/19/99 -0700, Leigh wrote:
> > ...
> > The idea that the reaction force is equal and opposite implicitly
> > entails the requirement of simultaneity, and of course we know
> > that simultaneity has no meaning for spatially separated events....
>
> > Leigh
>
> I don't know that simultaneity has no meaning for
> spatially seperated events.
> Or am I nitpicking?

You appear to know it, since you quoted Einstein.
Or is it the spelling you are taking about? I like
my way better.

Simultaneity is meaningful only in a trivial sense.
It has meaning when events are coincident in spacetme.

Leigh