Understanding Relativity Requires Effort !?
in [Relativity]
|
From: buenno on 25 Apr 2010 10:00 On Apr 25, 3:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "buenno" <ue38...(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. v may also stands for frequency and vorticity are you just tell me that your beta stands for length expansion? please tell more
From: Androcles on 25 Apr 2010 10:24 "buenno" <ue38l72(a)techemail.com> wrote in message news:e4fe388d-5bf5-4d20-b17a-f64f1c7d2cc9(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 25, 3:24 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> "buenno" <ue38...(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. > > v may also stands for frequency and vorticity > > are you just tell me that your beta stands > for length expansion? > > please tell more I'm not in the business of teaching English to those that don't know what the words mean, or algebra to those that don't know what the symbols mean. Nor am I a dictionary giving out a list of definitions. Learning " Requires Effort!? " For you " this must be impossible !!! "
From: Bruce Richmond on 25 Apr 2010 11:05 On Apr 24, 4:59 am, buenno <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > 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 You are correct, it does take effort to understand relativity. What confuses most is that it isn't usually explained that relativity changes the basic assumptions made when measuring things. The biggest difference is that in SR you make the speed of light your standard for making measurements. Doing that requires that clock sync varies between relativly moving observers. Because of that you have to be careful which clocks you use when making measurements. An every day way of explaining the idea is that a person flosting in space says to himself, "I am not moving. That other guy is moving." The other guy is justified in saying the same thing, and they are both correct. It all depends on what points you consider to be stationary when you make your measurements, and how you sync your clocks based on that assumption. Hope that helps. Bruce
From: Sue... on 25 Apr 2010 11:37 On Apr 25, 11:05 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 4:59 am, buenno <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > You are correct, it does take effort to understand relativity. What > confuses most is that it isn't usually explained that relativity > changes the basic assumptions made when measuring things. The biggest > difference is that in SR you make the speed of light your standard for =========== > making measurements. Doing that requires that clock sync varies > between relativly moving observers. Because of that you have to be > careful which clocks you use when making measurements. Loretz ether idiot! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory << Einstein's relativity principle states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... > > An every day way of explaining the idea is that a person flosting in > space says to himself, "I am not moving. That other guy is moving." > The other guy is justified in saying the same thing, and they are both > correct. It all depends on what points you consider to be stationary > when you make your measurements, and how you sync your clocks based on > that assumption. > > Hope that helps. > > Bruce
From: Bruce Richmond on 25 Apr 2010 14:20
On Apr 25, 11:37 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 25, 11:05 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 4:59 am, buenno <ue38...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > You are correct, it does take effort to understand relativity. What > > confuses most is that it isn't usually explained that relativity > > changes the basic assumptions made when measuring things. The biggest > > difference is that in SR you make the speed of light your standard for > > =========== > > > making measurements. Doing that requires that clock sync varies > > between relativly moving observers. Because of that you have to be > > careful which clocks you use when making measurements. > > Loretz ether idiot! > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory I said nothing about Lorentz. Does this men you don't believe in relative simultaneity as explained in Einstein's "Relativity"? > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical > experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense > between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's > laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. > Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of > relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the > same form in all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > same in all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > Sue... > > > > > > > An every day way of explaining the idea is that a person flosting in > > space says to himself, "I am not moving. That other guy is moving." > > The other guy is justified in saying the same thing, and they are both > > correct. It all depends on what points you consider to be stationary > > when you make your measurements, and how you sync your clocks based on > > that assumption. > > > Hope that helps. > > > Bruce- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |