The Concept of Simultaneity: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| published = 1978 | | published = 1978 | ||
| journal = [[Pursuit]] | | journal = [[Pursuit]] | ||
| volume = | | volume = 11 | ||
| number = | | number = 2 | ||
| pages = 60-65 | | pages = 60-65 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
It has generally been accepted among physicists of this century that simultaneity is relative to the observer, only. There are two concepts used of the word, however, both used in explication of the special theroy of relativity and both stemming from versions of operationalism. In this paper I should like to examine them and demonstrate that neither is tenable in a strict sense. | It has generally been accepted among physicists of this century that simultaneity is relative to the observer, only. There are two concepts used of the word, however, both used in explication of the special theroy of relativity and both stemming from versions of operationalism. In this paper I should like to examine them and demonstrate that neither is tenable in a strict sense. | ||
[[Category:Relativity]] | [[Category:Scientific Paper|concept simultaneity]] | ||
[[Category:Relativity|concept simultaneity]] | |||
Latest revision as of 09:28, 21 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | The Concept of Simultaneity |
| Author(s) | Harry E Mongold |
| Keywords | Simultaneity |
| Published | 1978 |
| Journal | Pursuit |
| Volume | 11 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 60-65 |
Abstract
It has generally been accepted among physicists of this century that simultaneity is relative to the observer, only. There are two concepts used of the word, however, both used in explication of the special theroy of relativity and both stemming from versions of operationalism. In this paper I should like to examine them and demonstrate that neither is tenable in a strict sense.