Understanding Relativity Requires Effort !?
in [Relativity]
|
From: SolomonW on 24 Apr 2010 12:21 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:54:45 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote: > 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? > Much of QCD is accepting what happening, relativity involves trying to understand. >> >> 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... > In basic classes, I noticed that people can grasp thermodynamics quickly as you can relate it to everyday life that they are used too. >> >> 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 Even Einstein had problems and mistakes so you are not alone with this.
From: PD on 24 Apr 2010 12:38 On Apr 24, 11:21 am, SolomonW <Solom...(a)nospamMail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:54:45 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote: > > 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? > > Much of QCD is accepting what happening, relativity involves trying to > understand. Well, I disagree on this, though this perception seems to be why so many people question relativity but they don't bother trying to question QCD. There are certain things that cannot be made sense of in relativity, if by that you mean reconciliation with common sense and everyday experience. Einstein seemed, with the extensive use of "gendankens", to at least try that reconciliation, and so many people think it really involves nothing more than just thinking things through. But at bottom line, relativity requires one to simply accept certain things that are found in experimental observation, but which if you think about them for a while, don't make any sense. The classic example of this is the frame-independence of the speed of light -- independent of speed of source and independent of speed of observer. In Einstein's original formulation of relativity, this was just taken as an experimental observation that seems to be true. In later formulations, this assumption could be replaced by other assumptions, such as the frame-independence of Maxwell's equations or the hyperbolic structure of spacetime. But in any case, this amounted to acceptance of an observational result that was inconsistent with what common sense might dictate. Common sense would dictate, for example, that Maxwell's equations had to be in reference to a material substrate and so could not be frame-independent. Common sense would dictate that time and space do not intermix and that simultaneity is an inherent property of two events and so cannot be observer-dependent. Nevertheless, observation flies in the face of common sense, and in such cases, it is common sense that must simply back down. The same is actually true in QCD. There are certain simple questions one can ask in order to get started. - Why is the nucleus so tightly packed compared the atom? - Why do quarks never appear isolated? - Why does antiscreening happen as opposed to the screening that happens in electrodynamics? PD > > > > >> 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... > > In basic classes, I noticed that people can grasp thermodynamics quickly as > you can relate it to everyday life that they are used too. > > > > >> 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 > > Even Einstein had problems and mistakes so you are not alone with this.
From: Androcles on 24 Apr 2010 13:01 "SolomonW" <SolomonW(a)nospamMail.com> wrote in message news:BUEAn.42517$TL1.17852(a)newsfe06.ams2... > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:54:45 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote: > >> 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? >> > > Much of QCD is accepting what happening, relativity involves trying to > understand. > > > >>> >>> 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... >> > > In basic classes, I noticed that people can grasp thermodynamics quickly > as > you can relate it to everyday life that they are used too. > > > > >>> >>> 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 > > Even Einstein had problems and mistakes so you are not alone with this. Even the Easter Bunny doesn't know how to lay chocolate eggs so you are not alone in this. Einstein was an arrogant idiot, it's hardly surprising he had problems and made mistakes. He was not the standard to measure by.
From: SolomonW on 25 Apr 2010 01:54 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:38:27 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote: > There are certain things that cannot be made sense of in relativity, > if by that you mean reconciliation with common sense and everyday > experience. I was actually referring to thermodynamics. I remember my first introduction was the example of a hot cup of coffee cooling.
From: buenno on 25 Apr 2010 05:14
On Apr 24, 1:52 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "buenno" <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote in message > > news:0ae563be-8ebb-4339-8c67-7269a8ddc76e(a)x18g2000prk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > Androcles wrote: > >> "buenno" <ue38...(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 how am i suppose to learn your maths without knowing what your symbols stands for this must be impossible !!! |