Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
--- Stephen Speicher <sjs@COMPBIO.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Stephen Speicher wrote:
I do not know what you have been told on other lists, but
special relativity is a geometric theory with the notion
of a point-like event as a fundamental concept. Clocks
are idealized to be present at any given event, not as an
extended object but as a point-like particle. One can
deal with a clock as an extended object in relativity,
but such techniques are _vastly_ more complex than
standard analysis.
Still let us try.
No, let us not. There is no point to complex analysis when
there is a lack of understanding and agreement of basic
principles upon which such an analysis is based.
Just a question. When a clock is idealized as a point-like particle,
the analysis is standard and simple, as you say above. When one deals
with a clock as an extended object (i.e. with a real clock), the
analysis is vastly more complex and we should not discuss it since
there is a lack of understanding between us.