espen180
- 831
- 2
yossell said:Kev,
thanks again.
I've looked at espen180's paper, your reference. In his opening paragraph, of that section, he says that, in the case of radial motion, d\theta/d \tau = d \phi /d tau = 0. I understand this a constraint on the functions. But then, when he says,
`we study the situation where we drop a test particle from rest at r and study it's (sic) acceleration immediately after dropping it relative to a stationary observer at r. Therefore dr/d\tau = 0'
that second equation is in fact to be understood as not about the function, but as true only at a particular coordinate, (t, x, y z)? (I recognise this may be too restrictive, that it may just one coordinate which is fixed - but the point is, it is not the general function that is being talked about here). So (??) we can only infer the truth of the equations that he goes on to derive in this section as being true *at* a particular point (t, x, y z) (or set of points) - it's just that mention of this point or points is implicit?
That makes sense to me - but again, the notation in the paper seems inconsistent. In section 4, on pure radial motion, similar equations are written, but here the equations can be interpreted as referring to the functions, rather than being implicitly restricted.
Is this correct?
Hi there.
Let first get it out of the way that I'm not a mathematician. I am more concerned about the underlying physics than the mathematical notation. Therefore, most of the details are in the text. This might have made the document confusing to some. Sorry about that.
Where I wrote \frac{dr}{d\tau}=0 a matematician might have written something like \left{}\frac{dr}{d\tau}_{\tau=0}=0
In both cases, the angular restrictions are made on the functions. They always hold. Radial restrictions are temporary, except in the case of pure circular motion, but I think I make it clear there. If not, I will make sure to do so in the future.