Understanding Relativity Requires Effort !?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 24 Apr 2010 07:26 "buenno" <ue38l72(a)techemail.com> wrote in message news:4654a906-97a1-4417-b512-92f0814abaed(a)c1g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 24, 12:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > wrote: >> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:cac76c0d-a489-446e-b127-56b64d944949(a)h16g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> >> > wrote: >> >> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:f09ade65-0abe-49e7-afd9-8aac36aff056(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > relativity is the only theory i know requiring >> >> > effort to understand >> >> >> > i have no problem with the other theories, like >> >> > entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so >> >> > on, but only relativity >> >> >> > you cant just come here and say you understand >> >> > relativity without effort, because you need to put >> >> > effort in it in order to understand >> >> >> > relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real >> >> >> Relativity is dead, period. The reason you find it difficult >> >> is that it self-contradictory and full of obfuscation. >> >> Consider a rod, length 1, at rest. >> >> This same rod, moving at 0.1c, has a length of >> >> 1.005 = 1/sqrt(1-0.1^2), yet the bozos call that >> >> length "contraction". >> >> The same rod, moving at 0.99c, has a length of >> >> 7.089 = 1/sqrt(1-0.99^2). >> >> >> The poor confused bozos will tell you I'm wrong, but the math >> >> doesn't lie. >> >> > thanks for your input >> >> > allow me to ask, which formulas you derive >> > and use in your calculation >> >> Not my calculation, the idiot Einstein's calculation: >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif >> where >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif >> >> >> >> > and please, explain what the eventually symbols >> > stands for, in details >> >> Greek letters refer to the "moving" frame, Roman letters refer to >> the "stationary" frame, primed Roman letters refer to the other >> "moving" frame. >> >> Refer tohttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >> >> The other moving frame uses x' = x-vt. >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF >> >> The idiot Einstein didn't understand he was combining functions, >> he was hopeless at mathematics. > > beta is a scaling factor to time in > that paper, i cant understand > > what stands your beta for exactly? > > what was the prerequisites of Einstein, > bachelor in physics? Refer to http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
From: buenno on 24 Apr 2010 07:43 Androcles wrote: > "buenno" <ue38l72(a)techemail.com> wrote in message > news:4654a906-97a1-4417-b512-92f0814abaed(a)c1g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 24, 12:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > > wrote: > >> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message > >> > >> news:cac76c0d-a489-446e-b127-56b64d944949(a)h16g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > >> > wrote: > >> >> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message > >> > >> >>news:f09ade65-0abe-49e7-afd9-8aac36aff056(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> >> > relativity is the only theory i know requiring > >> >> > effort to understand > >> > >> >> > i have no problem with the other theories, like > >> >> > entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so > >> >> > on, but only relativity > >> > >> >> > you cant just come here and say you understand > >> >> > relativity without effort, because you need to put > >> >> > effort in it in order to understand > >> > >> >> > relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real > >> > >> >> Relativity is dead, period. The reason you find it difficult > >> >> is that it self-contradictory and full of obfuscation. > >> >> Consider a rod, length 1, at rest. > >> >> This same rod, moving at 0.1c, has a length of > >> >> 1.005 = 1/sqrt(1-0.1^2), yet the bozos call that > >> >> length "contraction". > >> >> The same rod, moving at 0.99c, has a length of > >> >> 7.089 = 1/sqrt(1-0.99^2). > >> > >> >> The poor confused bozos will tell you I'm wrong, but the math > >> >> doesn't lie. > >> > >> > thanks for your input > >> > >> > allow me to ask, which formulas you derive > >> > and use in your calculation > >> > >> Not my calculation, the idiot Einstein's calculation: > >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif > >> where > >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif > >> > >> > >> > >> > and please, explain what the eventually symbols > >> > stands for, in details > >> > >> Greek letters refer to the "moving" frame, Roman letters refer to > >> the "stationary" frame, primed Roman letters refer to the other > >> "moving" frame. > >> > >> Refer tohttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > >> > >> The other moving frame uses x' = x-vt. > >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF > >> > >> The idiot Einstein didn't understand he was combining functions, > >> he was hopeless at mathematics. > > > > beta is a scaling factor to time in > > that paper, i cant understand > > > > what stands your beta for exactly? > > > > what was the prerequisites of Einstein, > > bachelor in physics? > > Refer to > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ i hope i am not wrong, but beta in that paper is related to time why dont you better tell me what your beta stands for, you keep secret? thank you p.s. what are your prerequisites?
From: Androcles on 24 Apr 2010 07:52 "buenno" <ue38l72(a)techemail.com> wrote in message news:0ae563be-8ebb-4339-8c67-7269a8ddc76e(a)x18g2000prk.googlegroups.com... > > > Androcles wrote: >> "buenno" <ue38l72(a)techemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4654a906-97a1-4417-b512-92f0814abaed(a)c1g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> > On Apr 24, 12:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> >> > wrote: >> >> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:cac76c0d-a489-446e-b127-56b64d944949(a)h16g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 24, 12:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>news:f09ade65-0abe-49e7-afd9-8aac36aff056(a)q31g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > relativity is the only theory i know requiring >> >> >> > effort to understand >> >> >> >> >> > i have no problem with the other theories, like >> >> >> > entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so >> >> >> > on, but only relativity >> >> >> >> >> > you cant just come here and say you understand >> >> >> > relativity without effort, because you need to put >> >> >> > effort in it in order to understand >> >> >> >> >> > relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real >> >> >> >> >> Relativity is dead, period. The reason you find it difficult >> >> >> is that it self-contradictory and full of obfuscation. >> >> >> Consider a rod, length 1, at rest. >> >> >> This same rod, moving at 0.1c, has a length of >> >> >> 1.005 = 1/sqrt(1-0.1^2), yet the bozos call that >> >> >> length "contraction". >> >> >> The same rod, moving at 0.99c, has a length of >> >> >> 7.089 = 1/sqrt(1-0.99^2). >> >> >> >> >> The poor confused bozos will tell you I'm wrong, but the math >> >> >> doesn't lie. >> >> >> >> > thanks for your input >> >> >> >> > allow me to ask, which formulas you derive >> >> > and use in your calculation >> >> >> >> Not my calculation, the idiot Einstein's calculation: >> >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img53.gif >> >> where >> >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img54.gif >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > and please, explain what the eventually symbols >> >> > stands for, in details >> >> >> >> Greek letters refer to the "moving" frame, Roman letters refer to >> >> the "stationary" frame, primed Roman letters refer to the other >> >> "moving" frame. >> >> >> >> Refer tohttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >> >> >> >> The other moving frame uses x' = x-vt. >> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/function.GIF >> >> >> >> The idiot Einstein didn't understand he was combining functions, >> >> he was hopeless at mathematics. >> > >> > beta is a scaling factor to time in >> > that paper, i cant understand >> > >> > what stands your beta for exactly? >> > >> > what was the prerequisites of Einstein, >> > bachelor in physics? >> >> Refer to >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > > i hope i am not wrong, but beta in > that paper is related to time You are wrong and you need to learn mathematics. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/SR4kids.htm
From: Sue... on 24 Apr 2010 08:23 On Apr 24, 4:59 am, buenno <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > relativity is the only theory i know requiring > effort to understand Teach a computer to understand it. Then you won't have to. http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm Sue... > > i have no problem with the other theories, like > entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so > on, but only relativity > > you cant just come here and say you understand > relativity without effort, because you need to put > effort in it in order to understand > > relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 10:54
On Apr 24, 3:59 am, buenno <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > relativity is the only theory i know requiring > effort to understand Really? How are you doing with QCD? How about plasma dynamics? > > i have no problem with the other theories, like > entropy, string, quantum (which is wrong) and so > on, but only relativity No problems with entropy? Then surely you can tell me whether the entropy increases or decreases during an adiabatic compression... > > you cant just come here and say you understand > relativity without effort, because you need to put > effort in it in order to understand > > relativity is kind of dead without effort, i mean not real |