Understanding Relativity Requires Effort !?
in [Relativity]
|
From: buenno on 25 Apr 2010 05:18 On Apr 24, 2:23 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > 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... first you need a multi kernel computer competing for answers, so there will be a lot of lies and dirty tricks in there, almost for sure the winning kernel would be lying then how would you know that the computer did indeed understood relativity without effort??? > > > > > 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: buenno on 25 Apr 2010 05:23 On Apr 24, 4:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> 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? > > > > > 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 shock me how cant it be adiabatic when you have compression !? you not quite familiar with what adiabatic stands for, are you good bye > > > > > 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 25 Apr 2010 08:54 On Apr 25, 4:23 am, buenno <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 4:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> 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? > > > > 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 shock me > > how cant it be adiabatic when you have compression !? > > you not quite familiar with what adiabatic stands for, are you :>) Thanks, this tells me all I need to know. > > good bye > > > > > > 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: Androcles on 25 Apr 2010 09:24 "buenno" <ue38l72(a)techemail.com> wrote in message news:996aca34-9ded-45bc-b31c-a10e75b999f9(a)n11g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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 !!! Life's tough that way. Most people understand v stands for velocity, understanding anything at all will require effort.
From: buenno on 25 Apr 2010 09:57
On Apr 25, 2:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 25, 4:23 am, buenno <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 4:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> 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? > > > > > 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 shock me > > > how cant it be adiabatic when you have compression !? > > > you not quite familiar with what adiabatic stands for, are you > > :>) > > Thanks, this tells me all I need to know. i dont care your hieroglyphics, adiabatic, no heat transfer, for real, you only may get by a complete isolation of your control volume as soon as you touch that control volume with your little finger, it is aint adiabatic anymore i suspect you just propagete definitions, another scientist not knowing what 2nd law of thermodynamics really stands for good very bye > > > > > good bye > > > > > 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 |