Talk:Thomas precession: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
The present form is lacking the c scaling for dt. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Stephen Elliott|Stephen Elliott]] ([[User talk:Stephen Elliott|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stephen Elliott|contribs]]) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The present form is lacking the c scaling for dt. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Stephen Elliott|Stephen Elliott]] ([[User talk:Stephen Elliott|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Stephen Elliott|contribs]]) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:It's just using units in which c=1, as is commonly done in relativity.--[[Special:Contributions/76.167.77.165|76.167.77.165]] ([[User talk:76.167.77.165|talk]]) 02:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==poor choice of derivation== |
==poor choice of derivation== |
Revision as of 02:50, 16 October 2009
Physics: Relativity Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
error report
Seems to be an error on the canonical form, a (1/c squared) is hanging without a differential, I think it should be dropped Bbharim (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC) bbharim
Seems to be an error in the form of ds^2. I understand it should be:
(ds)^2=(c dt)^2 - (dr)^2 - (r d phi)^2 - (dz)^2
The present form is lacking the c scaling for dt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Elliott (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's just using units in which c=1, as is commonly done in relativity.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
poor choice of derivation
The derivation is basically copied directly, without credit, from the book by Rindler. It's also a poor choice of derivation. Rindler is introducing the reader to general as well as special relativity, so it makes sense for him to use GR in the derivation. For this article, it would be preferable to give an explanation in terms of special relativity, such as the one in Jackson's Classical Electromagnetism.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- The material has been removed as a copyvio. Charvest (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)