Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Physics
Special and General Relativity
Deriving Lorentz Factor: An Analysis of Jimmy360's Method
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Ibix, post: 6046332, member: 365269"] I think that's just another way of saying the same thing. It's not clear to me whether the original derivation intended to use ##t## for the moving frame or the rest frame. The problem is that it used one in the expression ##d=ct'## and the other in ##vt##, which is inconsistent. Both of these should use the same one of ##t## or ##t'##, and the expression for ##l## should use the other. You seem to have fixed the problem by changing ##vt## to ##vt'##. I fixed it by switching ##t## and ##t'## in the other two expressions. Either approach is self consistent. Since the original derivation doesn't specify which frame is supposed to be using ##t## and which ##t'##, either approach is also consistent with the full problem specification (such as it is). I'm not sure whether it's a physics problem or a "confused by their own notation" problem. Either way, the maths is inconsistent and you seem to have found a valid fix. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
Special and General Relativity
Deriving Lorentz Factor: An Analysis of Jimmy360's Method
Back
Top