Understanding Relativity Requires Effort !?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 25 Apr 2010 15:51 On Apr 25, 2:20 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > 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"? No reason to doubt that than Einstein could make stipulations and definitions. Lawyers do it all the time. <<There is only one demand to be made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A > M as for the path B > M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html > > > << 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 - > >
From: Bruce Richmond on 25 Apr 2010 16:31 On Apr 25, 3:51 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 25, 2:20 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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"? > > No reason to doubt that than Einstein could > make stipulations and definitions. Lawyers > do it all the time. And like a lawyer you are very good at answering questions without answering them ;) > <<There is only one demand to be made of the > definition of simultaneity, namely, that in > every real case it must supply us with an > empirical decision as to whether or not the > conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. > That my definition satisfies this demand is > indisputable. That light requires the same time > to traverse the path A > M as for the path B > M > is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis > about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation > which I can make of my own freewill in order > to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.>>http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html > > > > > > << 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: jem on 26 Apr 2010 09:08 Bruce Richmond 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 What leads to much of the confusion around here are attempts to explain Relativity by people who don't know what they're talking about. Hope that helps. 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: Henry Wilson DSc on 29 Apr 2010 20:16 On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:29:16 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: when are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... ........A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 29 Apr 2010 22:42
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:29:16 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > when are you going to say something intelligent? I see that you have difficulty responding to simple questions like 'where did you learn relativity?' or 'why did you post forged degrees and lie about it?'. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability. |