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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: David Rutherford [mailto:drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1:48 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: A Geometrical Proof of the Non-invariance of the
Spacetime
Interval
"RAUBER, JOEL" wrote:
F' can not
This may be obvious to others, but I'll keep at it.
It appears to me that the problem is that you think person
determine the city in which they are located at anyparticular time. Which
as your intuition is telling you is patently absurd. And*is not* the
implication of SR.spatial coordinates
Sure his stomach's coordinates are always zero, but the
of breakfast as measured by F' is a different question thanwhat city
breakfast occured in and F' is fully capable of answeringeither question.
stomach is the
F' can easily determine in what city he ate breakfast. His
origin of F' and he eats breakfast at t' = 0. So thecoordinate location of
breakfast is F's origin, as is lunch. But the city inwhich breakfast
occured is simply determined by F' noticing that LA'scoordinates are also
at the origin at breakfast (hence breakfast is in LA). ButSan Diego's
coordinates are at the origin when he eats lunch, thereforehe concludes
that he at lunch in the city of San Diego.
Then he _should_ say that the distance between breakfast (in Los
Angeles) and lunch (in San Diego) is the distance between Los Angeles
and San Diego, in his frame, which is _not_ zero. But in SR,
the Lorentz
transformations say that he _must_ get a distance of zero between
breakfast and lunch.