1. silicon valley
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    101289
    31 Mar '10 18:03
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Don't you have some text on special relativity? There's got to be something about the Lorentz transformations in there.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
  2. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    24000
    31 Mar '10 18:05
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    E=mc^2 is derived with the assumption that the speed of light is constant, so saying that E=mc^2 implies that c is constant is logically wrong (affirmation of the consequent).

    In the context of theory I think that the former is quite easy to understand: you don't prove a thing that you assumed in the beginning. Take this example:

    I assume that chi ...[text shortened]... we can arrive at E=mc^2 we also can't conclude that E=mc^2 implies the constancy of c.
    Don't know how I missed this, thank you for that.

    I understand that this is a bit circular, and I can see now why my wording would be incorrect.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree