What makes a formula - to be relativistic??
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Lab experiment done to figure out how quickly molecular hydrogenformed after Big Bang
Next: Quantum Gravity 399.99: P(A-->B) + P(B-->A) = 1 + P(A<-->B) and P(A-->B) - P(B-->A) = P(B) - P(A) in LISP-like Notation
From: Y.Porat on 3 Jul 2010 09:25 On Jul 3, 2:08 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 23:23:41 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" > > <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Wat makes a physics formula- to be relativistic??!! > > >TIA > >Y.Porat > >------------------------------------- > > repeated use of lativistic formulas, > or > using retro-lativistic formulas > yield finally > re-lativistic formulas > > hope that helps. > > w. ----------------- (:-) BYE clown Y.p --------------------
From: Y.Porat on 3 Jul 2010 09:39 On Jul 3, 2:52 pm, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > On 3 July, 07:23, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Wat makes a physics formula- to be relativistic??!! > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------------------- > > It's relativistic if its form doesn't change when viewed from any > frame using the transformations of relativity. > > You might define an equation: > > Force = mass x acceleration. > > Where force is defined as that measured in the frame of the particle, > mass is a constant that is the same in all frames. --------------------------- like the case of V=c !!! because c is constant in all frames !! ------------ ------------------------- But on applying the > LT equations to the space and time components of acceleration, ---------- how can you aooly it only to L T while you have no mass in that system to apply means tomeasure or detect it as well so please tell us about any measuring tool that does not have mass !!! -------------- you'd > find that it was not of the form: > > Force = mass x acceleration' > > Hence the equation isn't relativistic. so ?? not relativistic but i asked about toshow me what is yes relativistic ?? ----------- > > This is just a simple example, bearing in mind that the definition of > force here isn't the modern one: f = d/dt( gamma mass) ------------ that is for *macrocosm* (the gamma !!) but lets concentrate on microcosm because the problem wit it--is in microcosm !!:: in microcosm we dont have gamma because while v=c it becomes undefined and VOID !!! ------------------ anyway Thanks !! Y.Porat ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 3 Jul 2010 09:48 On Jul 3, 2:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "blackhead" wrote in message > > news:3ff03b45-5b68-4aa8-93ce-abb573ac11e2(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >It's relativistic if its form doesn't change when viewed from any > >frame using the transformations of relativity. > > I like that definition. ------------ i like to discuss with human beings !!(:-) thattheir huimor comes only** after** the physics discussion and there are here !! take for insatnce 'blackhead' even your humor is 1 not original you just parrot as usual someone else !! 2 it comes to **obfuscate the fact ** THAT YOU HAVE NO ANSWER TO MY QUESTION WHILE WE DEAL WITH PHOTONS -FOR INSTANCE but too bad: **you cant cheat every body forever !!** we have here mostly intelligent thinking -and sane people !! (not to mention honest ....) next Y.P ------------------------------------- Y.P ------------------------ ... -------------- Y.P
From: Inertial on 3 Jul 2010 09:55 "Y.Porat" wrote in message news:64395f48-438c-47e5-8f69-c8d05ec35399(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > >On Jul 3, 2:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "blackhead" wrote in message >> >> news:3ff03b45-5b68-4aa8-93ce-abb573ac11e2(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >It's relativistic if its form doesn't change when viewed from any >> >frame using the transformations of relativity. >> >> I like that definition. > >------------ >i like to discuss with human beings !!(:-) Then don't talk to yourself > thattheir huimor comes only** after** the > physics discussion Your attempts at physics discussion are always hilarious .. never serious. > and there are here !! >take for insatnce 'blackhead' >even your humor is > > not original > you just parrot as usual someone else !! What humour is that? >2 >it comes to **obfuscate the fact ** I don't obfuscate > THAT YOU HAVE NO ANSWER TO MY > QUESTION I answered your question already. Of course, you have no qualms about lying about things like that. > WHILE WE DEAL WITH > PHOTONS -FOR INSTANCE You didn't ask anything about photons .. you asked what makes a formula 'relativistic' >but too bad: >*you cant cheat every body forever !!** I cheat noone and dont' attempt to. > we have here mostly intelligent > thinking -and sane people !! > (not to mention honest ....) Yeup .. like me. Glad you noticed. Shame you don't qualify
From: Robert Higgins on 3 Jul 2010 13:56
On Jul 3, 2:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Wat makes a physics formula- to be relativistic??!! That it was developed by my RELATIVES! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------------- |