- #1
neutrino
- 2,094
- 2
It seems to me that words confuse me more than mathematics does. Till the page I'm reading now, Rindler hasn't gone beyond using partial derivatives, and has used more words than mathematics. I don't have anything against it, except that I don't understand what he's trying to say most of the time. Either something is wrong with the way I read the text, or with the way he's trying to explain things. I suspect it is the former. I usually take a break and then reread the parts I don't understand. It helps sometimes, but not in this case.
Here's something from the argument that shows the LT is linear.
Consider a clock C moving with uniform velocity relative to a frame S. The spatial coordinates of the clock in S are [itex]x_i, i = 1,2,3[/itex]. Therefore, [itex]\frac{dx_i}{dt} = const.[/itex]. That's all fine. Here's the part that I don't understand, and I quote from the book.
Why should [tex]\frac{dt}{d\tau}[/tex] be a constant? I assumed this to be true and read the rest of the argument, which is quite clear.
Thanks for any help.
Here's something from the argument that shows the LT is linear.
Consider a clock C moving with uniform velocity relative to a frame S. The spatial coordinates of the clock in S are [itex]x_i, i = 1,2,3[/itex]. Therefore, [itex]\frac{dx_i}{dt} = const.[/itex]. That's all fine. Here's the part that I don't understand, and I quote from the book.
If [itex]\tau[/itex] is the time indicated by C itself, homogeneity requires the constancy of [itex]\frac{dt}{d\tau}[/itex]. (Equal outcomes here and there, now and later, of the experiment that consists of timing the ticks of a standard clock moving at constant speed.)
Why should [tex]\frac{dt}{d\tau}[/tex] be a constant? I assumed this to be true and read the rest of the argument, which is quite clear.
Thanks for any help.
Last edited: