Should modern physics be taught in high school?

[Yousuf Khan]

Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.

With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.

Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/physics-double-standard

[Martin Brown]

On 20/11/2012 16:19, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
> from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
> to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
> from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
> in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in

Which makes it a great foundation on which to build further knowledge
and it is still relevant to the rest of the population in daily life.

People still drive too close and fast like they do not believe in basic
Newtonian physics such as momentum and kinetic energy.

> university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
> at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
> deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.

Not sure that the physics and chemistry graduates are the problem here.

Most of the deniers study soft subjects or electrical engineering where
relativity must be lamentably taught based on the number of nutters who
still write in to Wireless World (it was much worse in the 1970's).

>
> With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
> to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
> its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
> introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
> to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
> prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
> the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
> introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
> curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
> just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.
>
> Yousuf Khan

I disagree. Until you have a basic understanding of classical physics
introducing relativity and quantum mechanics without the mathematics
makes it into another just so story and prone to attack by deniers.

The thing that really needs to be communicated is that at relativistic
speeds common sense Galilean dynamics no longer works reliably.

The same is also true of Galilean dynamics in a rotating reference frame
as gunnery correction tables used by Northern powers in the Southern
hemisphere have demonstrated as recently as the Falklands War.

I could countenance teaching relativity as "the laws of physics are the
same for all observers in an inertial frame". One law is known to be
that electromagnetic radiation always travels in a vacuum at speed c.

Then derive the beautiful derivation of the relativistic transforms
using the mutual events of two metre rules AB and CD passing each other
at a speed v. That gets you the rules of the game with only high school
algebra (although admittedly quite a lot of it)

> http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/physics-double-standard

I recall my own physics A level did include some basic discovery of
radioactivity, charge on an electron and the photoelectric effect for
which Einstein got his Nobel Prize. Nothing after 1920 though. And A
level chemistry did involve a handwaving explanation of tetrahedral SP3
orbitals but without the requisite mathematics to back it up.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Big Dog]

I agree, and there are both curricula and textbooks which take a more
modern approach. Some of the things that are done in them cover these
topics:
- Conservation of momentum and energy BEFORE Newton's laws of motion,
with the latter being really more of an afterthought.
- Changing characterization of objects and forces to pairs of objects
and interactions.
- Identifying systems and system properties, including variant and
invariant properties.
- Discussion of conceptual taxonomies and how to introduce new ideas:
material objects, material substances, materials as composites of
particles, fields, waves, quantum fields.

Taking this approach makes the incorporation of modern physics MUCH
easier and more natural, and in fact they do not have to be relegated to
the back of the book if you do so.

[Benj]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:55:17 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

> On 20/11/2012 16:19, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
>> from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the
>> need to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the
>> physics from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we
>> deal with in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced
>> in

> Which makes it a great foundation on which to build further knowledge
> and it is still relevant to the rest of the population in daily life.
>
> People still drive too close and fast like they do not believe in basic
> Newtonian physics such as momentum and kinetic energy.

All physics should be totally cut from any High School curriculum. And
luckily this goes right with the modern push to eliminate algebra and
geometry as well!

Nobody EVER uses any of this stuff once they graduate. Surveys have been
made and the overwhelming majority affirm they never used it again. What
does a modern citizen need with this kind of information? It's about like
teaching slaves to read and write. It can only end badly.

And while "modern" physics is even worse, having no utility even for
those employed in the field, It does have the advantage of training
students to blindly accept pronouncements and dogma from those in
authority without question. And obviously that is good.

[Salmon Egg]

In article <XBOqs.12676$o91....@newsfe07.iad>,

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> The same is also true of Galilean dynamics in a rotating reference frame
> as gunnery correction tables used by Northern powers in the Southern
> hemisphere have demonstrated as recently as the Falklands War.

Please tell me more about this. It is hard for me to conceive that
British forces defeated by German ships of of Coronel, and later
defeating German Forces at Falkland (WWI) would be unaware of Coriolis
forces. Naval gunfire in WWII in the Southern hemisphere also would have
been noticed.

I have noticed, in my career, that many engineers who took up
engineering as a good way of making a living rather than as an
interesting profession may have been insulated from real life situations.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[Helmut Wabnig]

That's already over.
There are no good physics teachers left for the smaller kids.
The (female) physics teacher at Feldkirchen, Austria,
would teach the littluns that iron (Ferrum) does not conduct
electricity. Too bad, if any of the kids had taken her teaching
seriously and tried to connect an iron wire to the mains plug.

It's better to have no physics than wrong physics.

w.
They didn't and they are still alive by miracle.

[Big Dog]

On 11/20/2012 1:25 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:

>
> That's already over.
> There are no good physics teachers left for the smaller kids.
> The (female) physics teacher at Feldkirchen, Austria,
> would teach the littluns that iron (Ferrum) does not conduct
> electricity. Too bad, if any of the kids had taken her teaching
> seriously and tried to connect an iron wire to the mains plug.
>
> It's better to have no physics than wrong physics.
>
> w.
> They didn't and they are still alive by miracle.

This is a different problem. There are in fact few good physics teachers
for high school kids, and the reason (I believe) can be traced to
professional tracks in the field of physics. Most students are
strenuously taught that there is nothing -- nothing -- that can be done
with a bachelor's degree in physics. Physics professors believe that if
there is a student taking their sophomore or junior level physics
course, then that student is either an aspiring engineer or an aspiring
research physicist. Thus they will either end up with a professional
certification or go on to at least a master's degree (if they are going
to take a "support" job) or a doctoral degree (if they intend to do
physics for a living). No student, then, takes just enough physics to
become a really good teacher of basic physics.

Almost without exception, those who ARE physics teachers in high school
do not have physics degrees, and so it is a subject that both
intimidates them slightly and for which they never had the chance to get
a gut feel. This is completely unlike other science areas, where it is
common for a teacher to have a background in environmental science, or
earth sciences, or chemistry, or biology -- and for them to be very good
teachers in those areas.

I frankly am shocked at how badly physics is taught to high school
students and when high-school children of friends come to me for advice
and help, it's amazing how easy it is to put them on the right track, to
show them how to think about physical systems -- rather than them
groping to "find the right equation". It is an easy subject to learn --
if it is taught correctly, which is increasingly rare. It's enough to
make we want to get certified to teach public schools in my state -- if
I were willing to take a 2/3 cut in pay.

In another anecdote, I created a course called Physics for the
Terrified, and one of the labs was an all-day, multi-experiment session
at a local theme park. I wrote a lab manual for it, and the students
made their own measuring instruments. This drew some attention from the
newspapers, and then I got a call from the School of Education at the
university, wondering if their students (future science teachers) could
come join us and do the same labs. I sent over the lab manual, but made
the stern caveat that the course was designed very low level, for
artists and English majors and business students. A few days later, I
got a call back from the Dean of the School of Education, and he let me
know that -- sadly -- the lab manual was too high level for our future
science teachers. I was dismayed beyond consolation.

Why do we have crappy physics teachers? Because we shoot too high or we
shoot too low, and we have no appreciation for the huge hole in the middle.

[Martin Brown]

On 20/11/2012 18:26, Salmon Egg wrote:
> In article <XBOqs.12676$o91....@newsfe07.iad>,
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The same is also true of Galilean dynamics in a rotating reference frame
>> as gunnery correction tables used by Northern powers in the Southern
>> hemisphere have demonstrated as recently as the Falklands War.
>
> Please tell me more about this. It is hard for me to conceive that
> British forces defeated by German ships of of Coronel, and later
> defeating German Forces at Falkland (WWI) would be unaware of Coriolis
> forces. Naval gunfire in WWII in the Southern hemisphere also would have
> been noticed.

They were not unaware of it. They were applying the correction with the
wrong handedness in the Southern hemisphere and so *doubling* the error!

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands

The gunnery control software allegedly also had to be tweaked as a
matter of urgency in the second Falkland War against Argentina too. And
inbound French planes and Exocet missiles added to the hostiles list.

> I have noticed, in my career, that many engineers who took up
> engineering as a good way of making a living rather than as an
> interesting profession may have been insulated from real life situations.
>

There is some debate as to whether it was a cover story like pilots
eating carrots were for radar night vision for fighter interceptors.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Benj]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:57:13 -0600, Big Dog wrote:

> Almost without exception, those who ARE physics teachers in high school
> do not have physics degrees, and so it is a subject that both
> intimidates them slightly and for which they never had the chance to get
> a gut feel. This is completely unlike other science areas, where it is
> common for a teacher to have a background in environmental science, or
> earth sciences, or chemistry, or biology -- and for them to be very good
> teachers in those areas.

Well, my high school physics teacher was also the golf coach and Drivers
Ed. instructor. Get the picture? A total idiot, but a nice guy. I do
think the social aspects of being a "nice guy" are far more important
than any science knowledge, don't you?

> I frankly am shocked at how badly physics is taught to high school
> students and when high-school children of friends come to me for advice
> and help, it's amazing how easy it is to put them on the right track, to
> show them how to think about physical systems -- rather than them
> groping to "find the right equation". It is an easy subject to learn --
> if it is taught correctly, which is increasingly rare. It's enough to
> make we want to get certified to teach public schools in my state -- if
> I were willing to take a 2/3 cut in pay.

That's exactly the problem. I've taken courses from Nobel prize winners,
but no high schooler ever will! It's a CRIME for such a person to come
in and teach kids basic science. That would be because while most will
acknowledge that the Laureate knows some science, the teacher's union
will opine that he really doesn't know "HOW TO TEACH" and therefore is
incompetent.

I remember as a little kid anxiously waiting to get back to the "physical
science" part of the general science book. Sorry. Public school teachers
have no clue about physical science. They only can understand naming the
parts of flowers and worms. We skipped that chapter. No wonder Bangladesh
beats the USA in science education.

As for you, Big Dog, even with your lack of science understanding, I'm
confident it would take a HUGE stash of some REALLY good shit, to get
your IQ low enough to be certified to teach in public schools. Give it
up. Ain't gonna happen.

[Bruce Sinclair]

Agreed ... educating the peasants is always a bad idea. They will just get
uppity if they understand things !

Followups set. :)

[Big Dog]

On 11/20/2012 4:12 PM, Benj wrote:

>
> That's exactly the problem. I've taken courses from Nobel prize winners,
> but no high schooler ever will! It's a CRIME for such a person to come
> in and teach kids basic science. That would be because while most will
> acknowledge that the Laureate knows some science, the teacher's union
> will opine that he really doesn't know "HOW TO TEACH" and therefore is
> incompetent.
>

In public schools, it is not sufficient to be knowledgeable in a subject
to become a public teacher. It is not even enough to have ample teaching
experience in other venues -- e.g. university.

If you want to teach in a public school, you need certification. This
means not only training in the subject matter but in courses
specifically about teaching AND you need a period of internship in a
real classroom before you become certified. A Nobel Prize winner would
not be ALLOWED to teach in public schools because they are not certified.

There are "alternative certification" programs that help experienced
professionals get into public school teaching, but they are fairly
onerous, including essentially giving up your salary while you intern,
and then there is no guarantee of getting a teaching job. In essence, it
is like quitting your job to go back to school to learn how to do
something else, even if what you want to do is to teach in your area of
expertise and even if you have lots of teaching experience.

This is ANOTHER reason why K-12 physics education is in a shambles.

[Timo]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:57:18 AM UTC+10, Big Dog wrote:
>
> Physics professors believe that if
> there is a student taking their sophomore or junior level physics
> course, then that student is either an aspiring engineer or an aspiring
> research physicist.

How large is your attrition? Under our current system, we might expect a lot of our 2nd year students in physics to be intending to major in physics, and perhaps 2/3 of them do. But only about 1/4 of those who major in physics will go and do more after their BSc (which, here in our British-style system, would be Honours (or MSc), then possibly PhD).

To expect that more than 1/4-1/3 would continue past their BSc is to ignore decades of historical experience. I don't expect the majority of our upper-level undergraduates to be aspiring research physicists.

It's true that traditional courses were/are aimed at aspiring research physicists, but that, and the appropriateness of it, is a different thing.

[Timo]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:09:29 AM UTC+10, Big Dog wrote:
>
> I agree, and there are both curricula and textbooks which take a more
> modern approach. Some of the things that are done in them cover these
> topics:
>
> - Conservation of momentum and energy BEFORE Newton's laws of motion,
> with the latter being really more of an afterthought.

Newton's laws of motion = conservation of momentum. Not made explicit often enough; the traditional track is to tack F=ma onto kinematics, and crunch numbers for a while, and then introduce momentum. Not very Newtonian!

A "conservation first" approach is nice, because it leads naturally to relativity in an "almost the same as classical mechanics" way, rather than a "look how different this is! Wasn't Newton a dunce?" way. Newton's laws of motion remain unchanged (i.e., momentum is still conserved), so avoids the "all that stuff we taught you in high school and last year is wrong!". (Newton's definition of momentum p=mv changes, so one can think about how to best introduce momentum in the first place.)

What's your favorite "modern" textbook?

[Big Dog]

Eric Mazur's (still unpublished).

[Martin Brown]

On 20/11/2012 19:25, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:19:04 -0500, Yousuf Khan
> <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
>>from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
>> to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
>>from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
>> in everyday life.

> That's already over.
> There are no good physics teachers left for the smaller kids.
> The (female) physics teacher at Feldkirchen, Austria,
> would teach the littluns that iron (Ferrum) does not conduct
> electricity. Too bad, if any of the kids had taken her teaching
> seriously and tried to connect an iron wire to the mains plug.

My A level physics teacher was a woman (inherited from the girls school
that combined to make a secondary school and sixth form college). She
was very good as was the head of maths and her understudy also women.
Back then women physics graduates were rarer than hens teeth.

>
> It's better to have no physics than wrong physics.

Depends how wrong it is. Most physics as taught at school is slightly
wrong or at the very least a crude approximation to the real world.

>
> w.
> They didn't and they are still alive by miracle.

Are you sure the littluns didn't misunderstand what she said?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 20/11/2012 22:12, Benj wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:57:13 -0600, Big Dog wrote:
>
>> Almost without exception, those who ARE physics teachers in high school
>> do not have physics degrees, and so it is a subject that both
>> intimidates them slightly and for which they never had the chance to get
>> a gut feel. This is completely unlike other science areas, where it is

When I was at school the physics teachers were mostly unemployed former
nuclear technicians from the "electricity too cheap too meter" boom
bust. Some were good and some were not. The chemistry teacher in my
final year was a mathematician as they had noone else to teach it.

>> common for a teacher to have a background in environmental science, or
>> earth sciences, or chemistry, or biology -- and for them to be very good
>> teachers in those areas.
>
> Well, my high school physics teacher was also the golf coach and Drivers
> Ed. instructor. Get the picture? A total idiot, but a nice guy. I do
> think the social aspects of being a "nice guy" are far more important
> than any science knowledge, don't you?

My sixth form physics teacher was amazingly good and a woman which was
very rare back then. Her standard of teaching was excellent.

>
>> I frankly am shocked at how badly physics is taught to high school
>> students and when high-school children of friends come to me for advice
>> and help, it's amazing how easy it is to put them on the right track, to
>> show them how to think about physical systems -- rather than them
>> groping to "find the right equation". It is an easy subject to learn --
>> if it is taught correctly, which is increasingly rare. It's enough to
>> make we want to get certified to teach public schools in my state -- if
>> I were willing to take a 2/3 cut in pay.
>
> That's exactly the problem. I've taken courses from Nobel prize winners,
> but no high schooler ever will! It's a CRIME for such a person to come
> in and teach kids basic science. That would be because while most will
> acknowledge that the Laureate knows some science, the teacher's union
> will opine that he really doesn't know "HOW TO TEACH" and therefore is
> incompetent.

It varies. I have also been to lecture courses by Nobel laureates and
various internationally known physicists. Some were excellent teachers
and a few were completely incomprehensible at a level where the
brightest people in the class went off to the other lecture stream
because it was impossible to learn anything from watching him perform
what were in effect magic tricks on various obscure and largely
irrelevant differential equations. It was obvious from the outset that
his exam question(s) would take forever and yield very few marks.

>
> I remember as a little kid anxiously waiting to get back to the "physical
> science" part of the general science book. Sorry. Public school teachers
> have no clue about physical science. They only can understand naming the
> parts of flowers and worms. We skipped that chapter. No wonder Bangladesh
> beats the USA in science education.

My junior school had a fully equipped science demo lab dating from the
Victorian era. It has since been knocked down.

>
> As for you, Big Dog, even with your lack of science understanding, I'm
> confident it would take a HUGE stash of some REALLY good shit, to get
> your IQ low enough to be certified to teach in public schools. Give it
> up. Ain't gonna happen.

Why do right wing USians want to prevent public education?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Will Janoschka]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:20:03,
bruce.s...@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair)
wrote:

Followups set. OK What does this have to do with the scientific
method,
that Banks use to steal everything? Peasants are easy to deal with
as they
have inferior weapons! :)

[Benj]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:51:13 -0600, Will Janoschka wrote:


> Followups set. OK What does this have to do with the scientific
> method,
> that Banks use to steal everything? Peasants are easy to deal with as
> they have inferior weapons! :)

Yes, but the really scary part is that there are SO MANY of them!

[Will Janoschka]

Who, Banks or peasants?

[Y.Porat]

------------------------
i would putit very short and sharp:

it is more than a half of a century that
'modern physics'
contributed any real advance
more over
the real advance was not done by theory of
Modern physics '
it was done by practical trial and error engineering
not by 'theory '

moreover
some of 'modern physics '
like
The Higgs Boson'
even costed a huge wait of **precious tine **
and human resources !!
IOW
TOO MUCH OF IT BECAME **A NEW RELIGION *
IE
PRIVATE CROOKED ***DISHONEST***
BUSINESS STORY

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------

[patmp...@gmail.com]

OK, so they deny relativity. So what? What difference does it make? I think it's kind of cute.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

Yeah. Have them study pizza making, its a lot more useful.

[Alen]

Oh no!! It is bad enough to be teaching Einstein's
science fiction, 'counterintuitive', 'far out ideas'
to physics students at university already, without
corrupting the minds of high school students as
well :(

Alen

[Yousuf Khan]

On 22/11/2012 8:15 AM, Alen wrote:
> Oh no!! It is bad enough to be teaching Einstein's
> science fiction, 'counterintuitive', 'far out ideas'
> to physics students at university already, without
> corrupting the minds of high school students as
> well :(
>
> Alen

It might have aided you, it looks like.

Yousuf Khan

[Sam Wormley]

On 11/22/12 7:15 AM, Alen wrote:
> Oh no!! It is bad enough to be teaching Einstein's
> science fiction, 'counterintuitive', 'far out ideas'
> to physics students at university already, without
> corrupting the minds of high school students as
> well :(
>
> Alen

My, my, you never learn physics reality based on observation and
experiment. What physics courses did you fail?

[xxein]

xxein: I can agree with all that. But I wonder what physics will be
like 400 years from now.

I'm very sure the physic will not change, but our understanding of it
will.

What next? Pondering over whether to teach Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics to a two year-old 400 years from now?

[Brad Guth]

On Nov 20, 8:19 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
> from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
> to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
> from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
> in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
> university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
> at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
> deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.
>
> With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
> to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
> its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
> introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
> to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
> prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
> the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
> introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
> curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
> just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.
>
>         Yousuf Khan
>
> http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/physics-double-standard

The mainstream status-quo doesn't want K12s capable of thinking
anything through for themselves.

[William Hamblen]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.astro.]
On 2012-11-20, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

[ a lot of stuff ]

We did work on special relativity in high school. This was 46
years ago. I have no idea what they do nowadays. You can't do much
more than wave hands with General Relativity because of the math.
Non-linear differential equations aren't high school. Same thing with
quantum mechanics. The math prevents more than a descriptive approach,
but you can introduce concepts.

Bud

[Benj]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:19:24 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> My, my, you never learn physics reality based on observation and
> experiment. What physics courses did you fail?

Sam, as you have pointed out here many times, observation and experiment
has nothing to do with science. It's all about a democratic majority vote
and a "consensus". If enough national science foundations and agaencies
and science trade organizations agree on something (example AGW) then
clearly it is automatically true.

What physics courses did you take?

[Big Dog]

On 11/22/2012 7:15 AM, Alen wrote:

> Oh no!! It is bad enough to be teaching Einstein's
> science fiction, 'counterintuitive', 'far out ideas'
> to physics students at university already, without
> corrupting the minds of high school students as
> well :(

Remind me again what you think is corrupting about counterintuitive and
"far out" ideas. Do you think students should only be taught simple and
intuitive ideas? Why?

[Big Dog]

It's BOTH.

Experimental results must be corroborated by independent research groups
to be believable. Thus there is a consensus element to experimental
observation.

Secondly, experimental observation discriminates between models and
shows some to be wrong, and others to be supported. In this way,
experimental results drive a consensus about which model (so far) is the
best one.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Alen]

Ha! You imply that Einstein's science fiction, 'counterintuitive',
'far out ideas' are equivalent to 'observation and experiment'
They are not - they are false interpretations of observation
and experiment, which have possible theoretical interpretations
different from Einstein's science fiction spacetime.

Alen

[Alfonso]

On 20/11/12 16:55, Martin Brown wrote:

> On 20/11/2012 16:19, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
>> from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
>> to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
>> from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
>> in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
>

> Which makes it a great foundation on which to build further knowledge
> and it is still relevant to the rest of the population in daily life.
>
> People still drive too close and fast like they do not believe in basic
> Newtonian physics such as momentum and kinetic energy.
>

>> university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
>> at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
>> deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.
>

> Not sure that the physics and chemistry graduates are the problem here.
>
> Most of the deniers study soft subjects or electrical engineering where
> relativity must be lamentably taught based on the number of nutters who
> still write in to Wireless World (it was much worse in the 1970's).

I don't know how anyone can "still write to Wireless World" as no
magazine of that title has existed since 1984.

I do recall the excellent series of articles in that magazine by the
distinguished physicist Dr Scott Murray called "A heretics guide to
physics" where he demonstrates how physics has slid into the realm of
mysticism.

>>
>> With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
>> to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
>> its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
>> introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
>> to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
>> prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
>> the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
>> introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
>> curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
>> just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>

> I disagree. Until you have a basic understanding of classical physics
> introducing relativity and quantum mechanics without the mathematics
> makes it into another just so story and prone to attack by deniers.
>
> The thing that really needs to be communicated is that at relativistic
> speeds common sense Galilean dynamics no longer works reliably.

But the speed of light is only about 1ft per nanosecond. Feet and
nanoseconds are both everyday unit in this century. What is missing is
any explanation of why dimensions change other than because the maths
demand it to make the second postulate true.

Beckmann and Mandics pointed out the possibility that Lorentz transforms
could simply be equivalence formula, making up for inaccurate
electrodynamics by suitable deforming space and time to achieve the
correct result. Thus cries of "relativity works" in no way proves that
it is correctly based.

Essen makes the same point a different way:

"Science involves measurement and measurement requires a system of units
which need to be carefully chosen such that do not have duplication.
Consider now the simplest of all measurements, the measurement of
velocity v expressed as the distance d travelled in time t. The result
is expressed as v=d/t. It is possible to define units in any two of the
quantities in this expression. In practice the units of distance and
time are defined and velocity is measured in terms of those units. If
the unit of velocity were defined as well then the value v can be
expressed in two ways in terms of the unit of velocity and in terms of
units of length and time. Conflicting results could be obtained.
Only a unit of measurement can be made constant by definition.
Making the velocity of light have a constant value c even to observers
in relative motion is comparable to making a unit of measurement
duplicating the units already defined. The definition of the unit of
length or that of time must be abandoned. To meet Einstein's two
conditions it is convenient to abandon both.
The contraction of length and the dilation of time can now
be understood as representing the changes that have to be made
to make the results of measurement consistent. There is no
question here of a physical theory but simply of a new system
of units in which c is constant, and length and time do not
have constant units but have units that vary with v^2/c^2. Thus
they are no longer independent, and space and time are
intermixed by definition and not as a result of some peculiar
property of nature.... If the theory of relativity is regarded
simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but
it serves no useful purpose" Essen

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 20, 9:19 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
> from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
> to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
> from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
> in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in

> university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
> at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
> deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.
>

> With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
> to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
> its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
> introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
> to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
> prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
> the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
> introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
> curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
> just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.
>
>         Yousuf Khan
>

> http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/physics-double-standard

They should also keep a cane with the physics teacher; otherwise there
will be too many questions.
Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody’s?
According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
are aging slowly.
So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
none?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:902fb367-e334-463a...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com

> So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody�s?

> According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
> are aging slowly.
> So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
> none?

Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are separated by
some distance. According to you your height is normal but I look
smaller. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
So natural question is who is smaller? Or nobody�s?
According to you I am smaller than you but according to me you
are smaller.
So natural question would be who is really smaller? You or me or
none?

Don't worry, even Dingle failed to understand that. See at the bottom of
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
You have seen it before. Don't say you haven't, because I know you have.

Dirk Vdm

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 23, 9:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody s?

> > According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
> > are aging slowly.
> > So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
> > none?
>
> Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are separated by
> some distance. According to you your height is normal but I look
> smaller. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?

> So natural question is who is smaller? Or nobody s?

> According to you I am smaller than you but according to me you
> are smaller.
> So natural question would be who is really smaller? You or me or
> none?
>
> Don't worry, even Dingle failed to understand that. See at the bottom of

>  http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialF...

> You have seen it before. Don't say you haven't, because I know you have.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Analogy is misplaced and irrelevant.
You said,
“According to you your height is normal but I look smaller.”
Dirk, like an 8th grade student you do not understand simple things.
According to me, you LOOK smaller but according to me you are NOT
smaller.
Understand the difference?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:y7qdnQ0auri1CzLN...@bt.com...

================================================
Very amusing. Of course the second and third postulates have
no foundation in reality. There is no way any fool would establish
by definition that tau(rAB/(c-v)) = tau(rAB/(c+v)) and call tau "linear"
unless he really was a fool.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:eb91cbec-e560-4b2c...@nl3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

>> You have seen it before. Don't say you haven't, because I know you
>> have.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Analogy is misplaced and irrelevant.
> You said,

> �According to you your height is normal but I look smaller.�

> Dirk, like an 8th grade student you do not understand simple things.
> According to me, you LOOK smaller but according to me you are NOT
> smaller.

So, get together and see who is REALLY smaller.
Get together, or get at rest w.r.t, each other, and see who has aged
REALLY less.

> Understand the difference?

Of course.
Understand the analogy? It is appropriate and relevant.
But *you* can't wrap your little mind over it.
Your problem entirely :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message news:k8o8u7$f99$1...@dont-email.me...

> So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody’s?

> According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
> are aging slowly.
> So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
> none?

Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are separated by
some distance. According to you your height is normal but I look
smaller. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?

So natural question is who is smaller? Or nobody’s?

According to you I am smaller than you but according to me you
are smaller.
So natural question would be who is really smaller? You or me or
none?

Don't worry, even Dingle failed to understand that. See at the bottom of
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html
You have seen it before. Don't say you haven't, because I know you have.

Dirk Vdm

==============================================
Dork thinks "looks smaller" means "really is smaller". That's why he's a
dork.
He hasn't seen this before:
-- So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
aged 6 years (2T/g). <no silly grin>
-- Psychodork Van de improper faggot
According to Einstein, tB-tA = rAB/(c-v) = 4/(1-0.8) = 20 years
for little sister’s signal to reach Earth from just before turnaround.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif
Little sister must be a tachyon.
Just after turnaround, t’A-tB = rAB/(c+v) = 4/(1+0.8) = 2.22 years,
the time it takes for stay-home Dork’s reply to reach little sister.
According to the frame jumping faggot, 20+2.22 = 6. ROFLMAO!

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 9:41 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> They should also keep a cane with the physics teacher; otherwise there
> will be too many questions.
> Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
> motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
> runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?

Both.

You might be assuming there must be one and only one correct answer that
is frame-independent. That's not true, and that's the point.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 10:52 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Analogy is misplaced and irrelevant.
> You said,

> �According to you your height is normal but I look smaller.�

> Dirk, like an 8th grade student you do not understand simple things.
> According to me, you LOOK smaller but according to me you are NOT
> smaller.
> Understand the difference?
>

You and I are in relative motion. Both of us have accelerated, so it's
not clear who is "really" moving. Moreover, as we have discussed, there
is no ultimate reference for stationary. And acceleration only tells you
a *change* in motion and does not tell you whether you had no motion
before and now have motion, or whether you had motion before and now
have no motion, or whether you had motion before and still now have motion.

To me, I am stationary and you are moving.
To you, you are stationary and I am moving.

So which of us is right?

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 9:28 AM, Alfonso wrote:

>
> I do recall the excellent series of articles in that magazine by the
> distinguished physicist Dr Scott Murray called "A heretics guide to
> physics" where he demonstrates how physics has slid into the realm of
> mysticism.

I'm curious about this phrase "distinguished physicist" Scott Murray.
How is he distinguished, and who distinguished him?

>
> But the speed of light is only about 1ft per nanosecond. Feet and
> nanoseconds are both everyday unit in this century. What is missing is
> any explanation of why dimensions change other than because the maths
> demand it to make the second postulate true.

Actually, the frame dependence of length is fully explained directly
from the frame-dependence of simultaneity, which is an observational
fact and is consistent with all known laws of physics, including the
*extremely* successful laws of quantum electrodynamics. I'm shocked -
SHOCKED, I tell you - that you are not aware of this explanation.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Don’t bring in stupid concept of frames here. School students will not
understand it. They have seen reality. Their minds will be filled with
hatred for physics if they are taught this insanity.
There is one and only one correct answer. Nature never deceives.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 23, 10:49 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 10:52 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > Analogy is misplaced and irrelevant.
> > You said,

> > “According to you your height is normal but I look smaller.”

> > Dirk, like an 8th grade student you do not understand simple things.
> > According to me, you LOOK smaller but according to me you are NOT
> > smaller.
> > Understand the difference?
>
> You and I are in relative motion. Both of us have accelerated, so it's
> not clear who is "really" moving. Moreover, as we have discussed, there
> is no ultimate reference for stationary. And acceleration only tells you
> a *change* in motion and does not tell you whether you had no motion
> before and now have motion, or whether you had motion before and now
> have no motion, or whether you had motion before and still now have motion.
>
> To me, I am stationary and you are moving.
> To you, you are stationary and I am moving.
>
> So which of us is right?

If you don’t know how we were set in motion, don’t talk about physics.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:5abb6051-9d5d-4bb4...@u4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com

Coward Tamhane copping out, as always ;-)

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

There is no ultimate reference for "stationary", Tamhane. If you believe
that physics MUST have such a reference, then you are about to be
deeply, deeply disillusioned about 400-year-old, classical, freshman
physics. You are in love with a model of the world that was popular in
Aristotle's day, where he made foolish "logic" mistakes like saying the
earth could not be rotating, otherwise dropped objects would land
somewhere other than directly under the drop point. If you find such a
world-view attractive, and such use of "logic" essential, then you are
welcome to join the dustbin of pre-scientific history.

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 11:59 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 23, 10:45 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/23/2012 9:41 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> They should also keep a cane with the physics teacher; otherwise there
>>> will be too many questions.
>>> Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
>>> motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
>>> runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
>>
>> Both.
>>
>> You might be assuming there must be one and only one correct answer that
>> is frame-independent. That's not true, and that's the point.
>>
>

> Don�t bring in stupid concept of frames here. School students will not
> understand it.

Don't presume that. Students have NO problem with frames, even if YOU did.

Again, you have this assumption that there is one and only one correct
answer, and that answer is true for all frames.

Even school students know this is not true, and that there are
properties that are frame dependent, just as Galileo and Newton realized
about motion.

> They have seen reality. Their minds will be filled with
> hatred for physics if they are taught this insanity.
> There is one and only one correct answer. Nature never deceives.

There is no deception. There are frame-dependent properties, no deception.

I can see that you have a DEEP and UNMOVABLE problem with this, even
though school students do not. Since this is fundamental to even
freshman physics and is illustrated time and time and time again in
beginning physics, then it is clear that you will not ever even grasp
freshman, classical physics.

If you want to stick to your guns and say, "Yes, I Vilas Tamhane, do not
believe the principles of freshman physics," then it would be good for
you to openly say so. You will always have the right to not believe
things that are understood by school children. Likewise, there are
adults who simply do not believe that the earth is older than 6600
years, and there is no way to convince them otherwise. Likewise, there
are adults who simply do not believe that man ever set foot on the moon,
and there is no way to convince them otherwise. You are free to
celebrate joining that class of the unconvincable and uneducable.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 23, 11:27 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/2012 11:59 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 10:45 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/23/2012 9:41 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> >>> They should also keep a cane with the physics teacher; otherwise there
> >>> will be too many questions.
> >>> Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
> >>> motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
> >>> runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
>
> >> Both.
>
> >> You might be assuming there must be one and only one correct answer that
> >> is frame-independent. That's not true, and that's the point.
>

> > Don’t bring in stupid concept of frames here. School students will not

Senseless sermon! Do you expect me to reply this kind of post?

[Big Dog]

I *do* think it would be good of you to openly say, "Yes, I Vilas
Tamhane, do not believe the principles of freshman physics." So yes, a
reply of that form would be useful.

If you cannot bring yourself to put that sentence together, even though
you have already said as much already, then I'd say that points to a
rather bad problem in your head. Don't you agree?

[Brad Guth]

On Nov 20, 8:19 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
> from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
> to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
> from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
> in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
> university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
> at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
> deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.
>
> With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
> to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
> its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
> introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
> to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
> prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
> the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
> introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
> curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
> just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.
>
>         Yousuf Khan
>
> http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/physics-double-standard

The church should be mandated by a presidential executive order, to
teach physics, as well as all home schooled and special education
schools need to have a strong degree of science and physics.

The 99.9% average American doesn't even know that Usenet/newsgroups
exist, much less capable of interacting in any positive/constructive
way.

It's pathetic and only getting worse. Now our phone networks and
especially cellular options are way over saturated with internet
streaming and interactive video gaming, to the point that ordinary
calls (including those of 911) can not get through even when more than
adequate signal is available. Basically everything is getting
connected to the internet, as well as parallel connected via cellular
services that are demanding a great deal of energy and are becoming
interdependent upon one another. At some point it's going down, and
at best the extra terawatt of energy demand is simply going to run out
of juice.

With a pathetically outdated and willfully overloaded national energy
grid (similar to our nearly dysfunctional telecommunication grids)
that doesn't even cover a good portion of our nation, there's a very
good chance of a total systemic cascade failure that'll take days to
patch and years to upgrade so that recreational and entertainment use
of such energy and communications can be sustained and paid for by the
lower 99% of us that do not abuse nor waste such resources to begin
with.

Roughly 25% efficiency is what the average of our energy grid delivers
from the source, however the digital grid efficiency isn't .1%
efficient once everything is honestly accounted for, with a thousand
bits going every which way for each and every digital bit that arrives
or leaves our computer, tablet or smartphone.

There are considerably better network methods and energy distribution
efficiencies that are not being seriously adapted. So, it’s only a
matter of time before it all comes to a halt that can’t be easily
fixed.

Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/102736204560337818634/BradGuth#slideshow/5630418595926178146

[hanson]

Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip Fatso's useless, loud mouthing crap>
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, you are a very, very bad teacher... USELESS!
All you do is pathetic loud-mouthing. Pity your ex-students.
You have not convinced anybody to buy your crap.
Even Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself, have taken
issue with you.
>
No wonder your boss, the Principal, of your elementary
school, has fired you because of your loudmouthing
and spreading of utterly useless crap.
>
What's your point of repeating your failures on Usenet?
Fatso, thanks for the laughs though.... ahahahahahanson

[tj Frazir]

They allready do .

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[tj Frazir]

fuck...fuck fuck fuck.

thats the best that can be said because you know damb well the fuck gov
will just use it as greenie mind controle.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[Big Dog]

On 11/23/2012 1:36 PM, hanson wrote:

> No wonder your boss, the Principal, of your elementary school, has fired
> you because of your loudmouthing and spreading of utterly useless crap.

Oh, ahahahahahahasshat, you have such a lame way of trolling.
But glad to know that you're allowed to be on the internet, despite your
documented conviction for soliciting minors for untoward favors on
web-based social networks. It shows how much tolerance society has for
do-nothing, pathological bullshit-flingers like you. Blood pressure
rising, asshat? Like flinging but don't like to be flung at? That's
because you're a fucking baby, that's why.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Being hit hurts. Hitting others is always joyous. That is the law of
nature.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Bertrand Russell has said that most of those who believe in religion
are idiots. Do you agree?

[Big Dog]

It's a nonsequitur question. I don't hold judgments against those who
are religious. Nor do I hold a statement to be true just because someone
of some notoriety said it -- I believe you would say the same thing. So
what Bertrand Russell has said is his opinion, and I don't believe he
had a scientific basis for saying it.

You and I may have a different understanding of what the difference is
between religion and science is, especially if you are claiming that
freshman physics is a religion.

I'm guessing that you think that any subject where questioning about
simple statements is scorned, would then be called a religion. If that's
the case, then elementary school arithmetic is a religion, because few
people question how to do long division or that 15-8=7. Do you think
that if someone questions whether it is really true that 15-8=7 and that
person is scorned for their question, then that is a sign that
arithmetic is a religion?

I'm also guessing that you are thinking that religion abhors thinking.
If that's the case, then you'll have to explain to me your view that
great philosophers and theologians like Paul Tillich, Martin Luther,
Karl Barth, John Milton, Soren Kierkegaard, and Reinhold Niebuhr are all
unthinking dolts.

For me, the difference between science and religion is that religion
asks you to believe certain things without any kind of experimental or
observational support, and to believe them even though they make no
distinctive predictions about observable behaviors. Science, on the
other hand, believes things that have experimental and observational
support, and the predictive power of scientific tenets is of paramount
importance.

Those things that are taught in freshman physics have distinct
predictions that have been verified by observation and experiment. This
is why they are believed, and this is why freshman physics is distinct
from religion.

I get the feeling that everyone that scolds you when you do not know
something basic from freshman physics, you would like to brand in some
way, and calling them religious is one way to retaliate. Now, you might
want to ask whether Bertrand Russell would call those who believe in
freshman physics idiots -- or whether that is just you.

[hanson]

ahahahahahahasshat Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked himself grievously cuz hanson touched Fatso's raw
nerve.
>.

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip Fatso's useless, loud mouthing crap>
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, you are a very, very bad teacher... USELESS!
All you do is pathetic loud-mouthing. Pity your ex-students.
You have not convinced anybody to buy your crap.
Even Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself, have taken
issue with you.
>

No wonder your boss, the Principal, of your elementary
school, has fired you because of your loudmouthing
and spreading of utterly useless crap.
>

[hanson]

ahahahahahahasshat Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked himself grievously cuz hanson touched Fatso's raw
nerve.
>.

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip Fatso's useless, loud mouthing crap>
>
hanson wrote:
Fatso, you are a very, very bad teacher... USELESS!
All you do is pathetic loud-mouthing. Pity your ex-students.
You have not convinced anybody to buy your crap.
Even Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself, have taken
issue with you.
>

No wonder your boss, the Principal, of your elementary
school, has fired you because of your loudmouthing
and spreading of utterly useless crap.
>

[Big Dog]

Oooh, I knew you'd lash out in yelping reflex, ahahahahahasshat. It's
all you know how to do, all you've ever done.

Thanks very much for foaming at the mouth when I rang the little bell.
Very amusing.

[hanson]

ahahahahahahasshat Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked himself grievously cuz hanson touched Fatso's raw
nerve.

<snip Fatso's useless, loud mouthing crap>

>.
"Alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
<good and useful info. See his posts>

[hanson]

ahahahahahahasshat Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked himself grievously cuz hanson touched Fatso's raw
nerve.
<snip Fatso's useless, loud mouthing crap>
>.

[hanson]

ahahahahahahasshat Fatso "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> cranked
himself grievously cuz hanson touched Fatso's raw nerve.
>>> .

[Salmon Egg]

In article <y7qdnQ0auri1CzLN...@bt.com>,

Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote:

> But the speed of light is only about 1ft per nanosecond. Feet and
> nanoseconds are both everyday unit in this century. What is missing is
> any explanation of why dimensions change other than because the maths
> demand it to make the second postulate true.
>

> Beckmann and Mandics pointed out the possibility that Lorentz transforms
> could simply be equivalence formula, making up for inaccurate
> electrodynamics by suitable deforming space and time to achieve the
> correct result. Thus cries of "relativity works" in no way proves that
> it is correctly based.

When Richard Feynman was still alive, he was the technical consultant
for a NOVA program about time. His presentation of a Fabry-Perot clock
clearly showed that light had to travel a longer distance in the moving
clock in a second than for a stationary clock. The ONLY mathematics
required is the Pythagorean theorem for right triangles. This clock
consists of two mirrors facing each other with a pulse of light bouncing
between them. The axis of the clock is normal to its direction of
motion. Because of this extra distance, the moving clock "ticks" more
slowly than a stationary clock.

To add to Feynman's presentation, add a moving Fabry-Perot clock with
its axis ALONG the direction of motion. For the two moving clocks
(perpendicular and parallel to the direction of motion) to tick at the
same rate, the spacing between the mirrors of the parallel clock must be
reduced. This can only be done if the moving unit of length in the
direction of motion to shrink. The physics drives the math--not the
other way around.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Salmon Egg" wrote in message
news:SalmonEgg-DC40D...@news60.forteinc.com...

=========================================================

When I went to school, the speed on the hypotenuse of a right triangle
was sqrt(c^2 +v^2), not sqrt(c^2+v^2) = c.
Increase the speed v until it equals c and we then have sqrt(c^2+c^2)
= sqrt(2c^2) = 1.414 c, and that isn't c either.
The math for your (or Feynman's if indeed it was he that made it) impossible
claim does not exist.
Moreover, the Michelson-Morley experiment clearly shows no change
in time.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

We'll add to that:
Why was Feynman stupid enough to believe it?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Mahipal]

On Nov 23, 10:41 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 20, 9:19 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
> > from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
> > to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
> > from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
> > in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
> > university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
> > at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
> > deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.
>
> > With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
> > to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
> > its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
> > introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
> > to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
> > prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
> > the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
> > introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
> > curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
> > just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.
>
> >         Yousuf Khan
>
> >http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/physics-double-standard
>

> They should also keep a cane with the physics teacher; otherwise there
> will be too many questions.

Speaking of cane and now Grasshopper...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/asia/in-china-schools-a-culture-of-bribery-spreads.html?pagewanted=all

same as http://tinyurl.com/bwckgx2 which really implies USA can
complain about China schools without holding a mirror to its own.

> Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
> motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
> runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?

> So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody’s?

> According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
> are aging slowly.

One is always not in motion in one's own reference frame. Sure feels
and measures like it. No matter how fast I bike, car, train, or fly...
for the most part my speed is always zero in my reference frame.

> So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
> none?

In a mole of gas there are 6.0221415e+23 molecules all traveling at
different directions and speeds. What's the time for their collective
Now? Is the question meaningless? Unlike photons, molecules are
subject to the laws of speeds.

Just asking questions here... what's my point? Well, I have Avogadro's
Number of points, not just one.

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal
http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/

[Vilas Tamhane]

Habitual liar! I never said Freshman’s physics is a religion.
Arithmetic and religion have no common ground. Religion is about
beliefs and so only a possible physics theory can be compared with it.
Once more you are not able to understand anything, even the simple
things. You should be really ashamed of this. When a person does not
apply his mind and believes in any aspect of belief then that person
is said to be following his belief in the same spirit as that of a
religion.
In the present context, if you don’t apply your mind to whatever is in
the text book then you are simply treating physics as a religion.
Problem about classical physics is with you and not with me. Like SR,
physics of that level was learned by you without applying your mind.
You don’t have any problem with classical relativity simply because
you either don’t have mind or you refuse to use it. I have given
examples why the concept of classical relativity is not applicable in
real world, not only goes above your head but you make comments that
only a completely insane person can make.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 24, 4:59 am, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <y7qdnQ0auri1CzLNnZ2dnUVZ8qmdn...@bt.com>,

So this is the direct experiment to prove length contraction! So why
they say there is no direct experiment to prove length contraction?
Can you furnish more details?

[ronnie...@gmail.com]

Ehh rather than Modern Physics I would prefer Quantum Mechanics. The CC's don't seem to have it and the university around here only carries it once a year -.- ~ fall.

[Vilas Tamhane]

> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/asia/in-china-schools-a-cultu...
>
> same ashttp://tinyurl.com/bwckgx2which really implies USA can

> complain about China schools without holding a mirror to its own.
>
> > Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
> > motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
> > runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
> > So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody’s?
> > According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
> > are aging slowly.
>
> One is always not in motion in one's own reference frame. Sure feels
> and measures like it. No matter how fast I bike, car, train, or fly...
> for the most part my speed is always zero in my reference frame.
>
> > So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
> > none?
>
> In a mole of gas there are 6.0221415e+23 molecules all traveling at
> different directions and speeds. What's the time for their collective
> Now? Is the question meaningless? Unlike photons, molecules are
> subject to the laws of speeds.
>
> Just asking questions here... what's my point? Well, I have Avogadro's
> Number of points, not just one.
>
> Enjo(y)...
> --
> Mahipalhttp://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/

Proper time does not change in SR. But that is not the relief. What we
now have are two measurements for a single clock. Improper and proper
one. Since proper ticking of clock remains unchanged it should be
clear that improper measurements carry no meaning. They are clearly
apparent and wrong.
I don’t know about gas but there is no reason why SR is not
applicable. I have forgotten chemistry.
After referring a book I have a rough figure for the velocity of gas
molecules. It is too low, about 483 m/sec. at 300 K. So mass of gas
molecules will increase by a factor of 13^-13. What is the weight of
the gas? It is negligible and so relativistic effect is not
measurable.

[Salmon Egg]

In article <kYUrs.536577$Tf3.4...@fx12.am4>,

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

Feynman was not stupid. Misapprehension is in the head of some
"stationary" observers. For a Fabry-Perot clock of length L mounted
transversely to the motion, the mirror moves a certain amount D in the
time required for the light from one mirror to reach the other. Thus,
the distance traveled by the light pulse is sqrt(L^2 + D^2). That is
greater than L. Thus the moving clock runs slower although it does not
look that way to anyone riding along with the clock. In a stationary
clock, the distance the light has to travel is only L.

Think your "the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light
from B to A is c+v" carefully again. The light pulse always travels at
c, but the distance it travels from A to B is not equal to the distance
from B to A. Einstein also was not stupid.

[Helmut Wabnig]

Where and when did he say that.
Please cite the origin of your information.

w.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Salmon Egg" wrote in message

news:SalmonEgg-EC377...@news60.forteinc.com...

================================================
Ok so far.

Thus the moving clock runs slower

================================================
Bullshit, there is no "thus" about it.
The light moves the greater distance in the same time because it travels
faster.
So would a bouncing ball. Thus Feynman was stupid.
You didn't answer my question.
Why did the IDIOT Einstein say

the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Salmon Egg" <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SalmonEgg-EC377...@news60.forteinc.com

Don't try to explain the *consequences* of the *assumption* (even
when based on experiments) that light speed is always c to someone
who says that light speed CANNOT always be c. They don't listen
because they think that your are trying to prove the assumption.
You are wasting your time - and theirs.

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

<LordAn...@November2012.org> wrote in message
news:Kp0ss.533351$9H4.3...@fx17.am4

See, Salmon?
" ... They don't listen because they think that your are trying to prove
the assumption..."

Dirk Vdm.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58c72b67-ab25-482c...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

See, Salmon (revisited)?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message news:k8qcg7$ab5$1...@dont-email.me...

=======================================
Why are you addressing me when you didn't answer my question, stupid faggot?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" wrote in message
news:JH2ss.641380$Ol2.3...@fx25.am4...

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that t = x'/(c-v)"
< http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img31.gif > --
Einstein.
See, Salmon?
Really stupid faggots like Dork Van de faggot can't read.

[Marvin the Martian]

Modern physics should be taught right after partial differential
equations, tensor analysis, and upper division mechanics and
electromagnetism... and probably thermodynamics.

Anything else and you're NOT teaching science, you're teaching dogma.

Sort of like how they teach their magical version of "evolution" in high
school.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:37:19 -0800, ronnie.ghose wrote:

> Ehh rather than Modern Physics I would prefer Quantum Mechanics. The
> CC's don't seem to have it and the university around here only carries
> it once a year -.- ~ fall.

Modern physics in my books is QM + SR, but not the Standard Model or GR.
It is't really all that modern anymore.

Community colleges don't offer modern physics because to teach these
subjects as physics and not religious dogma, you have to have the
prerequisites, and community colleges don't even offer the prerequisites.
Besides, most community college students won't need modern physics for
their course of study. Hell, 4 year colleges have problems selling modern
physics to the Engineering department for their students.

The problem with Yousuf's proposal is that modern physics can't be taught
at a high school level. Further, it is quite clear from the anti-SR folks
in sci.physics that they WERE NEVER taught SR, they read some pop-fiziks
book or watched that Kaku clown's TV show on the idiot box and he's
dumbed it down to pander to an audience that is even DUMBER.

> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:19:06 AM UTC-5, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
>>
>> from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the
>> need
>>
>> to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the
>> physics
>>
>> from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
>>
>> in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
>>
>> university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
>>
>> at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up
>> becoming
>>
>> deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.

I'm good with that, because they drop the course in the middle of the
quarter and these clowns then sell their books back, where I can pick up
a $200 book for cheap!

You can tell where they give up because that's where the stupid yellow
highlighter stops. At first, they highlight most everything... then it
becomes less frequent, and then a few notes in the margins and they
"correct" a couple of equations and then put it back, and then...
Nothing. They dropped the course. :-D

You can usually skip the preliminary stuff that confused these dropouts
anyway.

>> With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
>>
>> to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
>>
>> its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is

Yeah, well, what's the fucking point then?

[Marvin the Martian]

First of all, I know what a Fabry-Perot interferometer is, but I've never
heard of a Fabry-Perot clock. The Fabry-Perot interferometer, as far as I
can see, has nothing to do with Einstein's light clock. I mean, yeah,
light reflects off two surfaces in both devices, but using a PF
Interferometer is just an unnecessary complication.

Wormly almost never posts his own original work so I tried to google from
where sam plagerized his post to see what the context was, but google
came up with nothing. It may be Wormley's original work! .Which would
explain the fuck up...

I think what is being talked about is Einstein's light clock, and not a FP
interferometer.

The whole Einstein's light clock thing is nothing more than a hypothesis
based on the premise that the speed of light is constant in all inertial
frames. It is not an experiment because no one has been able to
accelerate a light clock to relativistic speeds.

[Mahipal]

> > same ashttp://tinyurl.com/bwckgx2whichreally implies USA can

SR is indeed applicable at all speeds. The numbers are just smaller.

> After referring a book I have a rough figure for the velocity of gas
> molecules. It is too low, about 483 m/sec. at 300 K. So mass of gas
> molecules will increase by a factor of 13^-13. What is the weight of
> the gas? It is negligible and so relativistic effect is not
> measurable.

It's not about remembering the chemistry really. I just wanted to
expand the count of relatively moving reference frames. For the sake
of teaching me the great insight of time as measured by stationary and
moving manmade clocks, pretend the gas molecules have speeds in which
relativistic effect is significant. It's just a thought experiment.

Going back into reading mode where the self proclaimed experts pretend
to have won a scientific argument only by denigrating their opponents.
It's as if the Laws of Physics don't apply to the stupid ones. No
wonder no one signs up for Physics at any level of schooling. Sheldon
Cooper, of The Big Bang Theory, portrays the condescension that
worthless ill-qualified Reseachers and Teachers have resorted to. Per
the denigration, their arguments -- actually lack of -- simultaneously
become canonically worthless, in my personal moving frame of
reference.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 12:00:06 +0000, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
wrote:

The M&M experiment showed that the speed of light is constant in an
inertial frame.

Given THAT observation, we use the observation as the ASSUMPTION in the
Einstein's clock experiment... and GIVEN the assumption come to the
CONCLUSION of time dilation and length contraction.

What Dirk was pointing out is that you're under the misconception that
the Einstein's clock "thought experiment" was intended to PROVE the
observation of the constant speed of light.

Apparently, you've confused the observation with the hypothesis many
times before.

[Salmon Egg]

In article <Kp0ss.533351$9H4.3...@fx17.am4>,

I presume Lord Androcles is the old Androcles who has recently elevated
himself to the peerage. Thus, I will leave it to others to enlighten the
new peer. I will no longer attempt to do so.

[hanson]

AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHSAHA...
>
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> Vilas Tamhane <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ahahahasshat Fatso Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>
ahahahasshat Fatso, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no deception... <snip Fatso's religious textbook recitals>
Don't you agree, Vilas?

>>
Vilas Tamhane wrote:
Bertrand Russell has said that most of those who believe
in religion are idiots. Do you agree?
>

Wabiew wrote:
Vilas, where and when did he say that.

cite the origin of your information.
>

hanson wrote:
Wabie, you don't know how funny that sounds coming
from you, == Wabnig the ultra rabid Atheist ==
Your urgent request seems to indicate that you have
doubts and hopes (= religion) after all, AND the need
to get confirmation for your own Belief-set.... from old
fart Russell.... ahahaha...AHAHAHAHAHA....
>
Wabie, IOW, now that the time for your for departure
is near, you seem to wanna make sure that you will
have a "reserved seat" available upon arrival, don't you.
Thanks for the laughs, Wabie.... ahahahahanson

[Salmon Egg]

In article <-uKdnT4tlJ3VTC3N...@giganews.com>,

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>
> First of all, I know what a Fabry-Perot interferometer is, but I've never
> heard of a Fabry-Perot clock. The Fabry-Perot interferometer, as far as I
> can see, has nothing to do with Einstein's light clock. I mean, yeah,
> light reflects off two surfaces in both devices, but using a PF
> Interferometer is just an unnecessary complication.
>
> Wormly almost never posts his own original work so I tried to google from
> where sam plagerized his post to see what the context was, but google
> came up with nothing. It may be Wormley's original work! .Which would
> explain the fuck up...
>
> I think what is being talked about is Einstein's light clock, and not a FP
> interferometer.
>
> The whole Einstein's light clock thing is nothing more than a hypothesis
> based on the premise that the speed of light is constant in all inertial
> frames. It is not an experiment because no one has been able to
> accelerate a light clock to relativistic speeds.

I was going to explain to Marten Martian what a Fabry-Perot clock is.
But I now can see that it is as useless to explain it as it is to
fabulous Androcles.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Nov 24, 10:46 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 12:00:06 +0000, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dirk Van de moortel"  wrote in message
> >news:k8qcg7$ab5$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

> > <LordAndroc...@November2012.org> wrote in message

> >news:Kp0ss.533351$9H4.3...@fx17.am4
> >> "Salmon Egg"  wrote in message
> >>news:SalmonEgg-EC377...@news60.forteinc.com...
>

> >> In article <kYUrs.536577$Tf3.412...@fx12.am4>,

> >> "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"

It cannot be. If it is then there is no way for light but to be
ballistic.

> Given THAT observation, we use the observation as the ASSUMPTION in the
> Einstein's clock experiment... and GIVEN the assumption come to the
> CONCLUSION of time dilation and length contraction.
>

It cannot be. If velocity of light is c in the moving compartment then
light velocity is source dependent and so more than c in the moving
compartment.

[Benj]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 07:53:12 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:


> First of all, I know what a Fabry-Perot interferometer is, but I've
> never heard of a Fabry-Perot clock. The Fabry-Perot interferometer, as
> far as I can see, has nothing to do with Einstein's light clock. I mean,
> yeah, light reflects off two surfaces in both devices, but using a PF
> Interferometer is just an unnecessary complication.

> The whole Einstein's light clock thing is nothing more than a hypothesis
> based on the premise that the speed of light is constant in all inertial
> frames. It is not an experiment because no one has been able to
> accelerate a light clock to relativistic speeds.

Obviously the FP thing is just a way for Feynman to make a point. But you
just don't get around science enough Marvin. Never heard of a laser, I
take it? Never heard of any of the modern "atomic" clocks? Maybe after
you get an education...

But the interesting and important thing, is that the "light clocks" are
just a portion of a variety of "electromagnetic" clocks. Yes they are all
thought experiments, but they CAN be calculated by physics. And what is
interesting is that while MANY electromagnetic clocks behave in
Einsteinian fashion...NOT ALL DO! This is an important result, because
in science just ONE exception kills the ENTIRE theory. I won't tell you
who did this or where to find these calculations because no doubt all the
"strategic writers" would be activated using their anti-Tesla methods on
one more scientist. Screw HVAC and the donkey he rode in on. It's just
enough to know that these calculations exist.

Even more interesting, is that the slowing of electromagnetic clocks in
no way implies the slowing of biological clocks which is always
idiotically assumed!

As for you, study more physics.

[Mahipal]

On Nov 24, 1:29 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <-uKdnT4tlJ3VTC3NnZ2dnUVZ5redn...@giganews.com>,

>  Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
> > First of all, I know what a Fabry-Perot interferometer is, but I've never
> > heard of a Fabry-Perot clock. The Fabry-Perot interferometer, as far as I
> > can see, has nothing to do with Einstein's light clock. I mean, yeah,
> > light reflects off two surfaces in both devices, but using a PF
> > Interferometer is just an unnecessary complication.
>
> > Wormly almost never posts his own original work so I tried to google from
> > where sam plagerized his post to see what the context was, but google
> > came up with nothing. It may be Wormley's original work! .Which would
> > explain the fuck up...
>
> > I think what is being talked about is Einstein's light clock, and not a FP
> > interferometer.
>
> > The whole Einstein's light clock thing is nothing more than a hypothesis
> > based on the premise that the speed of light is constant in all inertial
> > frames. It is not an experiment because no one has been able to
> > accelerate a light clock to relativistic speeds.
>
> I was going to explain to Marten Martian what a Fabry-Perot clock is.
> But I now can see that it is as useless to explain it as it is to
> fabulous Androcles.

Thank you very much Sam for admitting you have nothing worthwhile to
contribute and need post no more. Much appreciated knowing whom not
to read. Your pretentious stance is as egg headed as that of vacuous
Big Dog's. We'll manage struggle survive to learn without Salmon's
Egg.

When will you Idiots ever learn that all of Physics is entirely devoid
of anything you personally ever contributed. Yet you come out here
defending it as if only you have the genes to understand it. Show me
your works?!

> --
>
> Sam
>
> Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
> Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

[Marvin the Martian]

That's experiment. You cannot argue with experiment and the universe
doesn't care how you think it should operate.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:41:01 +0000, Benj wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 07:53:12 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>
>> First of all, I know what a Fabry-Perot interferometer is, but I've
>> never heard of a Fabry-Perot clock. The Fabry-Perot interferometer, as
>> far as I can see, has nothing to do with Einstein's light clock. I

>> mean,r

>> yeah, light reflects off two surfaces in both devices, but using a PF
>> Interferometer is just an unnecessary complication.
>
>> The whole Einstein's light clock thing is nothing more than a
>> hypothesis based on the premise that the speed of light is constant in
>> all inertial frames. It is not an experiment because no one has been
>> able to accelerate a light clock to relativistic speeds.
>
> Obviously the FP thing is just a way for Feynman to make a point. But
> you just don't get around science enough Marvin. Never heard of a laser,
> I take it? Never heard of any of the modern "atomic" clocks? Maybe after
> you get an education...

It would be helpful if you actually said what you think a Fabry-Perot
clock is. As I said, I have studied the physics of a Fabry-Perot
INTERFEROMETER, but not a "clock". I am also familiar with Einstein's
"Light Clock" and the description of how the light clock demonstrates

time dilation and length contraction.

Atomic clock have nothing to do with relativistic effects. Not sure why
you're throwing lasers and atomic clocks into the discussion.

> But the interesting and important thing, is that the "light clocks" are
> just a portion of a variety of "electromagnetic" clocks. Yes they are
> all thought experiments, but they CAN be calculated by physics. And what
> is interesting is that while MANY electromagnetic clocks behave in
> Einsteinian fashion...NOT ALL DO! This is an important result, because
> in science just ONE exception kills the ENTIRE theory. I won't tell you
> who did this or where to find these calculations because no doubt all
> the "strategic writers" would be activated using their anti-Tesla
> methods on one more scientist. Screw HVAC and the donkey he rode in on.
> It's just enough to know that these calculations exist.
>
> Even more interesting, is that the slowing of electromagnetic clocks in
> no way implies the slowing of biological clocks which is always
> idiotically assumed!
>
> As for you, study more physics.

You need to read the post before you reply. You wasted a lot of time.

[Helmut Wabnig]

Of course, and I hope you do some prayers for me.


w.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:41:01 +0000, Benj wrote:

> Even more interesting, is that the slowing of electromagnetic clocks in
> no way implies the slowing of biological clocks which is always
> idiotically assumed!

Wait... come again?!

Yes, TIME ITSELF in the moving inertial frame as observed by the
stationary frame. That would mean that living things also appear to slow
in their aging.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 07:53:12 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:

I searched the NOVA website, and I tried google. No reference to using a
FP interferometer as "Einstein's clock".

I suspect that the OP was confused, and the OP offered no cites other
than a NOVA television show.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Salmon Egg" wrote in message

news:SalmonEgg-5B55A...@news60.forteinc.com...

In article <Kp0ss.533351$9H4.3...@fx17.am4>,
"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAn...@November2012.org> wrote:

> Bullshit, there is no "thus" about it.
> The light moves the greater distance in the same time because it travels
> faster.
> So would a bouncing ball. Thus Feynman was stupid.
> You didn't answer my question.
> Why did the IDIOT Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?

I presume Lord Androcles is the old Androcles who has recently elevated
himself to the peerage. Thus, I will leave it to others to enlighten the
new peer. I will no longer attempt to do so.

===================================================
I'd call you chicken for running away unable to answer but you are just an
egg.
Einstein was stupid, Feynman was stupid, and you are stupid. Perhaps you'll
hatch someday and be edible.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Benj]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:44:19 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> It would be helpful if you actually said what you think a Fabry-Perot
> clock is. As I said, I have studied the physics of a Fabry-Perot
> INTERFEROMETER, but not a "clock". I am also familiar with Einstein's
> "Light Clock" and the description of how the light clock demonstrates
> time dilation and length contraction.

Lengths don't contract

> Atomic clock have nothing to do with relativistic effects. Not sure why
> you're throwing lasers and atomic clocks into the discussion.

Right. This has absolutely nothing to do with relativistic effects.

>> As for you, study more physics.
>
> You need to read the post before you reply. You wasted a lot of time.

Sorry won't happen again. Don't have the time to waste. I'll need it to
study more physics and the non-relationship between atomic clocks and
relativistic effects.

Anyway, I never enter the "who is smarter than Einstein" contest here
online. Hence, I try to never discuss relativistic effects. Obviously, I
messed up.

[Benj]

Sorry. Won't discuss it.

[fjol...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:19:06 AM UTC-5, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff discovered
>
> from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I understand the need
>
> to keep things simple for HS students to digest, and most of the physics
>
> from 400 years ago is still basically the only stuff that we deal with
>
> in everyday life. However, when modern physics is introduced in
>
> university, a lot of students are surprised by how different physics is
>
> at these extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
>
> deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.
>
>
>
> With modern computer graphics equipment, it should be easier than ever
>
> to visualize modern physics without going into explicit details about
>
> its complex equations. Maybe it's about time that modern physics is
>
> introduced into high schools, at a basic level, mainly to get them used
>
> to the far out ideas that are beyond our everyday experiences, and
>
> prevent more from becoming deniers? Relativity could be introduced into
>
> the end of physics (mechanics) courses, while Quantum Mechanics could be
>
> introduced into the end of chemistry courses? It shouldn't be a full
>
> curriculum on these subjects, with experiments, etc., just a documentary
>
> just to introduce them to the ideas that are modern physics.
>
>
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>
>
> http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/physics-double-standard

I'm all for it. Just don't try to promulgate the "many-worlds" model as anything but a mathematical construct.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:07:05 +0000, Benj wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:44:19 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> It would be helpful if you actually said what you think a Fabry-Perot
>> clock is. As I said, I have studied the physics of a Fabry-Perot
>> INTERFEROMETER, but not a "clock". I am also familiar with Einstein's
>> "Light Clock" and the description of how the light clock demonstrates
>> time dilation and length contraction.
>
> Lengths don't contract

I had no idea you were an anti-SR crank.

True enough that no one has ever conducted an experiment to show length
contraction like they've validated time dilation, but given Maxwell's
equations, length contracts.

>> Atomic clock have nothing to do with relativistic effects. Not sure why
>> you're throwing lasers and atomic clocks into the discussion.
>
> Right. This has absolutely nothing to do with relativistic effects.

Then why did you bring up lasers and atomic clocks??

>>> As for you, study more physics.
>>
>> You need to read the post before you reply. You wasted a lot of time.
>
> Sorry won't happen again. Don't have the time to waste. I'll need it to
> study more physics and the non-relationship between atomic clocks and
> relativistic effects.

There was an experiment where they compared an atomic clock in a fast
moving airplane in flight with an atomic clock on the ground, to test
time dilation. They verified time dilation.

Are you under the misconception that the physics of the atomic clock is
based on special relativity? Good heavens no!

[Marvin the Martian]

You're wrong. Period.