Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Should modern physics be taught in high school?
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Yousuf Khan
Nov 20, 2012, 11:19:04 AM11/20/12
to
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
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
Nov 20, 2012, 11:55:17 AM11/20/12
to
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
> 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
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.
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
> 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
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
Benj
Nov 20, 2012, 1:19:23 PM11/20/12
to
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
> 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.
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
Nov 20, 2012, 1:26:36 PM11/20/12
to
In article <XBOqs.12676$o91....@newsfe07.iad>,
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.
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
> 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.
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
Nov 20, 2012, 2:25:23 PM11/20/12
to
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.
Martin Brown
Nov 20, 2012, 2:57:34 PM11/20/12
to
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
> 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.
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.
>
eating carrots were for radar night vision for fighter interceptors.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bruce Sinclair
Nov 20, 2012, 7:20:03 PM11/20/12
to
uppity if they understand things !
Followups set. :)
Martin Brown
Nov 21, 2012, 11:58:00 AM11/21/12
to
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.
> 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
> 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.
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
> It's better to have no physics than wrong physics.
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?
> w.
> They didn't and they are still alive by miracle.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Alen
Nov 22, 2012, 8:15:32 AM11/22/12
to
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
Nov 22, 2012, 4:11:29 PM11/22/12
to
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.
> 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
Sam Wormley
Nov 22, 2012, 4:19:24 PM11/22/12
to
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
> 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
experiment. What physics courses did you fail?
xxein
Nov 22, 2012, 7:17:27 PM11/22/12
to
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
Nov 22, 2012, 8:49:16 PM11/22/12
to
anything through for themselves.
William Hamblen
Nov 22, 2012, 11:57:20 PM11/22/12
to
["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
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
Nov 23, 2012, 12:03:26 AM11/23/12
to
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
> My, my, you never learn physics reality based on observation and
> experiment. What physics courses did you fail?
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?
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 23, 2012, 2:43:58 AM11/23/12
to
"William Hamblen" wrote in message
news:rdGdnX1ac9StnzLN...@earthlink.com...
==============================================================
Modern physics should be taught in church, it takes a lot of blind faith and
ignorance of mathematics to believe "we establish by definition that the
“time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires
to travel from B to A" and tau(rAB/(c-v)) = tau(rAB/(c+v)), the virgin birth
of special relativity.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
news:rdGdnX1ac9StnzLN...@earthlink.com...
Modern physics should be taught in church, it takes a lot of blind faith and
ignorance of mathematics to believe "we establish by definition that the
“time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires
to travel from B to A" and tau(rAB/(c-v)) = tau(rAB/(c+v)), the virgin birth
of special relativity.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Alen
Nov 23, 2012, 9:57:12 AM11/23/12
to
'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
Nov 23, 2012, 10:28:40 AM11/23/12
to
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
> 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).
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.
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
Nov 23, 2012, 10:41:47 AM11/23/12
to
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
Nov 23, 2012, 11:40:38 AM11/23/12
to
"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?
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
news:902fb367-e334-463a...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com
> 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
> are aging slowly.
> So natural question would be who is really aging slowly? You or me or
> none?
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
Nov 23, 2012, 11:52:39 AM11/23/12
to
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?
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?
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > 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?
> > 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?
> 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...
> 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
> You have seen it before. Don't say you haven't, because I know you have.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Analogy is misplaced and irrelevant.
>
> Dirk Vdm
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
Nov 23, 2012, 11:52:42 AM11/23/12
to
"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.
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.
Dirk Van de moortel
Nov 23, 2012, 12:09:49 PM11/23/12
to
"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb91cbec-e560-4b2c...@nl3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com
>> 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.
>> 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.
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
Nov 23, 2012, 11:56:53 AM11/23/12
to
"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?
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!
> 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?
> 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?
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
==============================================
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!
Brad Guth
Nov 23, 2012, 2:11:22 PM11/23/12
to
On Nov 20, 8:19 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
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
Salmon Egg
Nov 23, 2012, 6:58:58 PM11/23/12
to
In article <y7qdnQ0auri1CzLN...@bt.com>,
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.
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
> 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.
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.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 23, 2012, 7:57:13 PM11/23/12
to
"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?
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?
Mahipal
Nov 23, 2012, 8:47:53 PM11/23/12
to
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...
> 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.
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.
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?
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
Nov 23, 2012, 11:08:39 PM11/23/12
to
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?
> In article <y7qdnQ0auri1CzLNnZ2dnUVZ8qmdn...@bt.com>,
they say there is no direct experiment to prove length contraction?
Can you furnish more details?
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 24, 2012, 1:00:26 AM11/24/12
to
>
> 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
>
> > 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/
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
Nov 24, 2012, 1:17:15 AM11/24/12
to
In article <kYUrs.536577$Tf3.4...@fx12.am4>,
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.
"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
"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.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 24, 2012, 4:26:09 AM11/24/12
to
"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?
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
Nov 24, 2012, 6:51:51 AM11/24/12
to
"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
news:SalmonEgg-EC377...@news60.forteinc.com
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
Nov 24, 2012, 6:53:41 AM11/24/12
to
"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<LordAn...@November2012.org> wrote in message
news:Kp0ss.533351$9H4.3...@fx17.am4
" ... They don't listen because they think that your are trying to prove
the assumption..."
Dirk Vdm.
Dirk Van de moortel
Nov 24, 2012, 6:54:30 AM11/24/12
to
"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58c72b67-ab25-482c...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 24, 2012, 7:00:06 AM11/24/12
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message news:k8qcg7$ab5$1...@dont-email.me...
=======================================
Why are you addressing me when you didn't answer my question, stupid faggot?
Why are you addressing me when you didn't answer my question, stupid faggot?
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 24, 2012, 7:12:51 AM11/24/12
to
"Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway" wrote in message
news:JH2ss.641380$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.
news:JH2ss.641380$Ol2.3...@fx25.am4...
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
Nov 24, 2012, 8:21:23 AM11/24/12
to
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.
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
Nov 24, 2012, 8:53:12 AM11/24/12
to
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
Nov 24, 2012, 11:10:08 AM11/24/12
to
> 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.
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
Nov 24, 2012, 12:46:10 PM11/24/12
to
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.
wrote:
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
Nov 24, 2012, 1:14:12 PM11/24/12
to
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.
himself to the peerage. Thus, I will leave it to others to enlighten the
new peer. I will no longer attempt to do so.
Salmon Egg
Nov 24, 2012, 1:28:58 PM11/24/12
to
In article <-uKdnT4tlJ3VTC3N...@giganews.com>,
But I now can see that it is as useless to explain it as it is to
fabulous Androcles.
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.
>
> 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.
But I now can see that it is as useless to explain it as it is to
fabulous Androcles.
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 24, 2012, 1:30:41 PM11/24/12
to
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$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
> > <LordAndroc...@November2012.org> wrote in message
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 12:00:06 +0000, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
> >news:k8qcg7$ab5$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
> >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>,
> >> "Salmon Egg" wrote in message
> >>news:SalmonEgg-EC377...@news60.forteinc.com...
>
> >> "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
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.
>
light velocity is source dependent and so more than c in the moving
compartment.
Benj
Nov 24, 2012, 1:41:01 PM11/24/12
to
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.
> 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
> 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.
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
Nov 24, 2012, 2:36:17 PM11/24/12
to
On Nov 24, 1:29 pm, Salmon Egg <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <-uKdnT4tlJ3VTC3NnZ2dnUVZ5redn...@giganews.com>,
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.
> 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
>
> > 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.
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
Nov 24, 2012, 2:38:19 PM11/24/12
to
doesn't care how you think it should operate.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 24, 2012, 2:44:19 PM11/24/12
to
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
> 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
>> 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
>> 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...
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.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 24, 2012, 2:47:02 PM11/24/12
to
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?!
> no way implies the slowing of biological clocks which is always
> idiotically assumed!
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
Nov 24, 2012, 3:45:54 PM11/24/12
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 07:53:12 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:
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
Nov 24, 2012, 4:04:35 PM11/24/12
to
"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
Nov 24, 2012, 6:07:05 PM11/24/12
to
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
> 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.
>> As for you, study more physics.
>
> You need to read the post before you reply. You wasted a lot of time.
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
Nov 24, 2012, 6:09:25 PM11/24/12
to
palsing
Nov 24, 2012, 6:24:16 PM11/24/12
to
Marvin the Martian
Nov 24, 2012, 6:38:22 PM11/24/12
to
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.
> 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
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.
>>> 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.
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
Nov 24, 2012, 6:38:51 PM11/24/12
to
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 24, 2012, 8:43:11 PM11/24/12
to
"palsing" wrote in message
news:998f2ebf-6a03-4ea8...@googlegroups.com...
======================================================
His paper clearly says
"we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from
A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. "
The double quotes around "time" are very clear and differs from time.
His paper also says:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif
and
So palsing, he may not have said he was the Christ the fucking Redeemer,
but the fucking idiot did say
Your jpg is inappropriate, you snivelling git.
news:998f2ebf-6a03-4ea8...@googlegroups.com...
His paper clearly says
"we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from
A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A. "
The double quotes around "time" are very clear and differs from time.
His paper also says:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif
and
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v."
So palsing, he may not have said he was the Christ the fucking Redeemer,
but the fucking idiot did 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.
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
Your jpg is inappropriate, you snivelling git.
palsing
Nov 24, 2012, 10:22:11 PM11/24/12
to
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 4:10:56 PM UTC-7, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> I'm a true Crank with a capital C, okay?
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/sci.astro/clxrInNiplQ/VULmNIjbFFIJ
> I'm a true Crank with a capital C, okay?
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/sci.astro/clxrInNiplQ/VULmNIjbFFIJ
Benj
Nov 25, 2012, 1:01:06 AM11/25/12
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:38:22 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> I had no idea you were an anti-SR crank.
You are correct. You have no idea.
> I had no idea you were an anti-SR crank.
I don't join THAT fray.
Benj
Nov 25, 2012, 1:03:10 AM11/25/12
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:38:51 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> Sorry. Won't discuss it.
>
> You're wrong. Period.
Proof by assertion won't get me going. I won't discuss it.
>> Sorry. Won't discuss it.
>
> You're wrong. Period.
hanson
Nov 25, 2012, 2:44:07 AM11/25/12
to
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
Mike Varney aka Marvin the Martian wrote:
Jacoby, I had no idea you were an anti-SR crank.
>
Jacoby wrote:
Varney, you are correct. You have no idea.
>
hanson wrote:
So, Varney is an Einstein Dingleberry. ROTFLMAO.
>
Pity. Marvin the Fartian got brainwashed & became
such badly damaged goods that he began to believe
||| "that the distinction between the past, resent &
||| future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
||| Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| live; they are simply modes in which we think"
>
Fartian Marvin does not know that already 60 years ago
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Einstein Dingleberries such as Varney, are rather
common events here in s.p. They all come to gather
here, being "between jobs", to proselytize their beliefs
which got them fired in the first place... in their hope
to find & commiserate with other Einstein Dingleberries
to worship Albert's sphincter...
>
Thanks for the laughs, Ben. ahahaha... ahahahanson
Marvin the Martian
Nov 25, 2012, 3:06:54 AM11/25/12
to
Or I could just point to a book.
Dirk Van de moortel
Nov 25, 2012, 4:54:10 AM11/25/12
to
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:AoadnbVP3IO2vyzN...@giganews.com
Idiots can argue with everything, specially with experiment.
They don't care how the universe operates.
Dirk Vdm
news:AoadnbVP3IO2vyzN...@giganews.com
They don't care how the universe operates.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
Nov 25, 2012, 4:54:10 AM11/25/12
to
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 25, 2012, 5:29:21 AM11/25/12
to
experiment is important. If there is logical inconsistency in the
explanation then you are wrong. Not the nature, not the experiment.
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 25, 2012, 5:44:11 AM11/25/12
to
makes you take a physics book in one hand and a cross in the other.
By calling Maxwell’s equation to support length contraction, you made
the second cardinal mistake. Nature doesn’t care for your equations.
The experiment to carry the clock in the airplane was clumsy and error
prone. I think there are web sites explaining this. But assuming their
inference was correct, they proved Lorentz right not Einstein.
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 25, 2012, 5:47:27 AM11/25/12
to
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 25, 2012, 5:51:50 AM11/25/12
to
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 25, 2012, 5:59:25 AM11/25/12
to
On Nov 25, 2:56 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in messagenews:AoadnbVP3IO2vyzN...@giganews.com
Those who argue need not always be intelligent, but those who always
listen are necessarily idiots.
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in messagenews:AoadnbVP3IO2vyzN...@giganews.com
listen are necessarily idiots.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 25, 2012, 8:17:50 AM11/25/12
to
"palsing" wrote in message
news:dfaa4534-fc8e-4ad9...@googlegroups.com...
We know that, palsing. You are fucking childish too.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
news:dfaa4534-fc8e-4ad9...@googlegroups.com...
> I'm a true Crank with a capital C, okay?
======================================
We know that, palsing. You are fucking childish too.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Dirk Van de moortel
Nov 25, 2012, 8:48:35 AM11/25/12
to
"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:64080c89-45ce-45e1...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com
-- which, if it is true, is consistent with your condition, as
arguing is the only thing you do.
> but those who always
> listen are necessarily idiots.
-- which, if it would be true, would bot be consistent with
your condition, as listening is the only thing you don't.
Dirk Vdm
news:64080c89-45ce-45e1...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com
arguing is the only thing you do.
> but those who always
> listen are necessarily idiots.
your condition, as listening is the only thing you don't.
Dirk Vdm
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 25, 2012, 9:43:52 AM11/25/12
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message news:k8sptg$k8k$1...@dont-email.me...
====================================================
Dork's experiment:
-- 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!
Psychodork will not listen.
Dork's experiment:
-- 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!
Psychodork will not listen.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 25, 2012, 11:17:03 AM11/25/12
to
other duplicating efforts that found that the speed of light did not
change in a local inertial frame regardless of the speed, the direct
conclusion via the "Einstein's Time Clock" experiment is time dilation
and length contraction.
This conclusion is consistent with and can be reached by the
transformation between moving frames that holds Maxwell's equations
invariant. If you're going to reject SR, you reject Maxwell's equations
as well.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 25, 2012, 11:26:59 AM11/25/12
to
put the crank on the defensive, so that they are unwilling to listen I
can accept that criticism. You can argue the fine details of rhetoric,
I'm good with that.
> By calling Maxwell’s equation to support length contraction, you made
> the second cardinal mistake. Nature doesn’t care for your equations.
my equations describe nature while the crank doesn't care about nature.
I've not heard a better explanation for the measured speed of light being
the same in all inertial frames.
> The
> experiment to carry the clock in the airplane was clumsy and error
> prone.
in a gravitational well, and not a test SR. BenJ got me off track when he
brought up atomic clocks which has nothing to do with the subject. My
bad. I was trying to figure out why he even brought up atomic clocks.
> I think there are web sites explaining this.
> But assuming their
> inference was correct, they proved Lorentz right not Einstein.
before?
Marvin the Martian
Nov 25, 2012, 11:28:21 AM11/25/12
to
Marvin the Martian
Nov 25, 2012, 11:34:14 AM11/25/12
to
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 02:59:25 -0800, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2:56 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not>
> wrote:
< snip >
> On Nov 25, 2:56 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not>
> wrote:
>> Idiots can argue with everything, specially with experiment.
>> They don't care how the universe operates.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Those who argue need not always be intelligent, but those who always
> listen are necessarily idiots.
is a non sequitor, unless you define "idiot" as "one who listens and
corrects errors". That isn't in my dictionary.
hanson
Nov 25, 2012, 1:38:43 PM11/25/12
to
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> aka Mike Varney
got brain-washed, became an Einstein Dingleberry & wrote:
... that he forgot "what Einstein did say that Lorentz and
Fitzgerald didn't say before?"
>
>
Vilas Tamhane wrote:
I think there are web sites explaining this
I think there are web sites explaining this
Mike Varney wrote:
I think there aren't.
>
hanson wrote"
I think there aren't.
>
Varney, to normal folks that does not matter. It's only
a fixation and obsession by & for the Gedanken farts
of Einstein Dingleberries during their worship of
Albert's sphincter which makes them believe
>
||| "that the distinction between the past, resent &
||| future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
||| Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| live; they are simply modes in which we think"
>
Fartian Marvin read this link so that you know why
||| "that the distinction between the past, resent &
||| future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
||| Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| live; they are simply modes in which we think"
>
already 60 years ago
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Einstein Dingleberries such as you, Varney, are rather
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
<http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
common events here in s.p. They all come to gather
here, being "between jobs", to proselytize their beliefs
which got them fired in the first place... in their hope
to find & commiserate with other Einstein Dingleberries
to worship Albert's sphincter...
>
Thanks for the laughs, Varney. ahahaha... ahahahanson
here, being "between jobs", to proselytize their beliefs
which got them fired in the first place... in their hope
to find & commiserate with other Einstein Dingleberries
to worship Albert's sphincter...
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Alfonso
Nov 26, 2012, 5:58:10 AM11/26/12
to
On 23/11/12 16:52, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Alfonso" wrote in message news:y7qdnQ0auri1CzLN...@bt.com...
>
> 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
>
> ================================================
> Very amusing. Of course the second and third postulates have
> no foundation in reality.
As I keep pointing out the reason it is accepted is because the
philosophy underpinning physics is not interested in reality. It says
reality is beyond the human mind and allows them to advance any "theory"
without deference to physical discipline.
It is that philosophy which should be challenged rather than the
"nonsense" which it accepts. It is only nonsense in terms of a
"sensible" philosophy. A sensible philosophy says a cat cannot be both
alive and dead. That the most stable particle in the universe - the
electron - must have a precise position even though it is impossible to
determine where it is. Retrospectively we can determine how long the cat
has been dead and where the electron *was* but the new philosophy, which
replaces understanding with prediction, says retrospective measurement
is irrelevant as it does not aid prediction. It says as we cannot
observe an electron in transit we cannot assume it exists as a particle
- that we create it when we measure it - even that there are an infinite
number of parallel universes and that it only arrives where it does in
ours.
"An electron can be observed only when it interacts with matter or
radiation: therefore it is of no concern to physics while it is in empty
space". Dirac,
How can one argue with people who accept this stuff and pat themselves
on the back for being able to accept this stuff and sneer at people who
don't accept this stuff.
What worries me is that eventually the public perception of physics will
become "very clever - but absolute twaddle". It is all very well to say
"serves them right" but the public will not be discerning about which
bits of physics are twaddle and may even turn against science generally.
Alfonso.
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.
> "Alfonso" wrote in message news:y7qdnQ0auri1CzLN...@bt.com...
>
> 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
>
> ================================================
> Very amusing. Of course the second and third postulates have
> no foundation in reality.
As I keep pointing out the reason it is accepted is because the
philosophy underpinning physics is not interested in reality. It says
reality is beyond the human mind and allows them to advance any "theory"
without deference to physical discipline.
It is that philosophy which should be challenged rather than the
"nonsense" which it accepts. It is only nonsense in terms of a
"sensible" philosophy. A sensible philosophy says a cat cannot be both
alive and dead. That the most stable particle in the universe - the
electron - must have a precise position even though it is impossible to
determine where it is. Retrospectively we can determine how long the cat
has been dead and where the electron *was* but the new philosophy, which
replaces understanding with prediction, says retrospective measurement
is irrelevant as it does not aid prediction. It says as we cannot
observe an electron in transit we cannot assume it exists as a particle
- that we create it when we measure it - even that there are an infinite
number of parallel universes and that it only arrives where it does in
ours.
"An electron can be observed only when it interacts with matter or
radiation: therefore it is of no concern to physics while it is in empty
space". Dirac,
How can one argue with people who accept this stuff and pat themselves
on the back for being able to accept this stuff and sneer at people who
don't accept this stuff.
What worries me is that eventually the public perception of physics will
become "very clever - but absolute twaddle". It is all very well to say
"serves them right" but the public will not be discerning about which
bits of physics are twaddle and may even turn against science generally.
Alfonso.
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.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Nov 26, 2012, 6:57:44 AM11/26/12
to
"Alfonso" wrote in message news:UemdnSCe1tHf1i7N...@bt.com...
====================================================
As I keep pointing out the reason is not accepted is because the
physics underlying your philosophy is reality and your philosophy
is not interested in physics, your philosophy is only interested in
theoretical physics.
It is that philosophy which should be challenged rather than the
"nonsense" which it accepts. It is only nonsense in terms of a
"sensible" philosophy. A sensible philosophy says a cat cannot be both
alive and dead. That the most stable particle in the universe - the
electron - must have a precise position even though it is impossible to
determine where it is. Retrospectively we can determine how long the cat
has been dead and where the electron *was* but the new philosophy, which
replaces understanding with prediction, says retrospective measurement
is irrelevant as it does not aid prediction. It says as we cannot
observe an electron in transit we cannot assume it exists as a particle
- that we create it when we measure it - even that there are an infinite
number of parallel universes and that it only arrives where it does in
ours.
"An electron can be observed only when it interacts with matter or
radiation: therefore it is of no concern to physics while it is in empty
space". Dirac,
================================================
Dirac was a west country bumpkin with autism.
"Dirac was known among his colleagues for his precise and taciturn nature.
His colleagues in Cambridge jokingly defined a unit of a dirac, which was
one word per hour."
"His mother, Florence Hannah Dirac, née Holten, the daughter of a ship's
captain, was born in Cornwall, England and worked as a librarian at the
Bristol Central Library. "
How can one argue with people who accept this stuff and pat themselves
on the back for being able to accept this stuff and sneer at people who
don't accept this stuff.
===============================================
Is it your mission to argue with the ineducable? They are not players
on the field, they are fans rooting for their team. If the referee calls
Einstein or Dirac "Offside" they'll scream at him to get spectacles
and talk about the goal *they* should have got. Theoretical football
is for Monday mornings and is not football. Theoretical physics is
the invention of Hogg's bisons and then searching the Great Plains
looking for one, but it turned up in CERN's zoo -- maybe. Now Dork
Matter is all the rage, the galaxies turn at the wrong speed. It's still
not physics.
What worries me is that eventually the public perception of physics will
become "very clever - but absolute twaddle". It is all very well to say
"serves them right" but the public will not be discerning about which
bits of physics are twaddle and may even turn against science generally.
========================================================
Worries you?
Go placidly amidst the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be
in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all
persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even
the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit. If you
compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always
there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own
career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of
time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of
trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons
strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about
love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial
as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of
youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do
not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue
and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of
the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be
here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as
it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life
keep peace with your soul. With all its shams, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy. -- Max
Ehrmann
As I keep pointing out the reason is not accepted is because the
physics underlying your philosophy is reality and your philosophy
is not interested in physics, your philosophy is only interested in
theoretical physics.
It is that philosophy which should be challenged rather than the
"nonsense" which it accepts. It is only nonsense in terms of a
"sensible" philosophy. A sensible philosophy says a cat cannot be both
alive and dead. That the most stable particle in the universe - the
electron - must have a precise position even though it is impossible to
determine where it is. Retrospectively we can determine how long the cat
has been dead and where the electron *was* but the new philosophy, which
replaces understanding with prediction, says retrospective measurement
is irrelevant as it does not aid prediction. It says as we cannot
observe an electron in transit we cannot assume it exists as a particle
- that we create it when we measure it - even that there are an infinite
number of parallel universes and that it only arrives where it does in
ours.
"An electron can be observed only when it interacts with matter or
radiation: therefore it is of no concern to physics while it is in empty
space". Dirac,
Dirac was a west country bumpkin with autism.
"Dirac was known among his colleagues for his precise and taciturn nature.
His colleagues in Cambridge jokingly defined a unit of a dirac, which was
one word per hour."
"His mother, Florence Hannah Dirac, née Holten, the daughter of a ship's
captain, was born in Cornwall, England and worked as a librarian at the
Bristol Central Library. "
How can one argue with people who accept this stuff and pat themselves
on the back for being able to accept this stuff and sneer at people who
don't accept this stuff.
Is it your mission to argue with the ineducable? They are not players
on the field, they are fans rooting for their team. If the referee calls
Einstein or Dirac "Offside" they'll scream at him to get spectacles
and talk about the goal *they* should have got. Theoretical football
is for Monday mornings and is not football. Theoretical physics is
the invention of Hogg's bisons and then searching the Great Plains
looking for one, but it turned up in CERN's zoo -- maybe. Now Dork
Matter is all the rage, the galaxies turn at the wrong speed. It's still
not physics.
What worries me is that eventually the public perception of physics will
become "very clever - but absolute twaddle". It is all very well to say
"serves them right" but the public will not be discerning about which
bits of physics are twaddle and may even turn against science generally.
Worries you?
Go placidly amidst the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be
in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all
persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even
the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit. If you
compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always
there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own
career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of
time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of
trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons
strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about
love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial
as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of
youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do
not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue
and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of
the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be
here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as
it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life
keep peace with your soul. With all its shams, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy. -- Max
Ehrmann
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 26, 2012, 9:34:18 AM11/26/12
to
describe nature, they assume nature.
It is one thing to say that a particular experiment proves that c is
same in all frames and quite other to examine logic behind it.
In Hafele Keating experiment, both GR and SR effects are considered.
One of the critical site is,
http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.in/2011/02/time-dilation-and-hafele-and-keating.html
And there are other if you search.
One can find little bit sense in what Lorentz said. He did not say
that length contraction and time dilation are relativistic.
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 26, 2012, 9:35:13 AM11/26/12
to
ether. So far as MMX is concerned, one conclusion could be that light
is ballistic.
Brad Guth
Nov 26, 2012, 12:14:41 PM11/26/12
to
On Nov 24, 8:10 am, Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 1:00 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 6:47 am, Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 10:41 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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-cultu...
>
> > > same ashttp://tinyurl.com/bwckgx2whichreallyimplies 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Enjo(y)...
> --
> Mahipalhttp://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
We're moving along at near the speed of light as is, and supposedly
everything else is strictly moving away from us in every possible
direction. So, how can SR be objectively applied from any given point
of reference?
> On Nov 24, 1:00 am, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 6:47 am, Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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
> > > > 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.
>
> > > > > 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
> > > > > 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
>
>
> > > > 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-cultu...
>
> > > same ashttp://tinyurl.com/bwckgx2whichreallyimplies 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Enjo(y)...
> --
> Mahipalhttp://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
We're moving along at near the speed of light as is, and supposedly
everything else is strictly moving away from us in every possible
direction. So, how can SR be objectively applied from any given point
of reference?
dion...@gmail.com
Nov 26, 2012, 3:28:52 PM11/26/12
to
> 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.
Relativity is at the end of modern college text books (and introduced in some high school texts). The problem is that a lot of our TEACHERS aren't interested. I got into a very heated exchange with my college professor over relativity. Essentially, she said it was "boring" and just a "repeat of subjects we covered with new equations", to which I stood on my desk, looked at the classroom, and stated that according to relativity, I am now aging slightly slower due to the fact that I am moving slightly faster than them.
>
> 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.
The point was lost on my professor - we did an extra week of LRC circuits instead. :P
Modern physics should be introduced early. It's exciting, it's fresh, and most of all, it's relevant!
Marvin the Martian
Nov 26, 2012, 8:33:27 PM11/26/12
to
mass falling in a gravitational field and describe its motion with
x = 1/2*g*t^2
There is no assumption made. The data is taken and an equation found to
describe the data.
> It is one thing to say that a particular experiment proves that c is
> same in all frames and quite other to examine logic behind it.
> In Hafele Keating experiment, both GR and SR effects are considered.
> One of the critical site is,
> http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.in/2011/02/time-dilation-and-
hafele-and-keating.html
> And there are other if you search.
> One can find little bit sense in what Lorentz said. He did not say that
> length contraction and time dilation are relativistic.
even wrong".
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 26, 2012, 10:04:03 PM11/26/12
to
vector analysis was applied to describe hydrodynamics and assuming
similarity in ether, Maxwell applied these to electromagnetic fields.
However what you said is not wrong. I should have said, equations do
not describe basic concepts.
Sam Wormley
Nov 27, 2012, 11:17:47 AM11/27/12
to
On 11/20/12 10:19 AM, 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
>
>
> http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/physics-double-standard
After reading the many comments in the thread, I would think it
useful, if for no other reason than to encourage inquiring minds to
learn more, to introduce high school students to some topics in
special relativity, such as the Lorentz transform, time dilation
and length contraction "observed" in cosmic muons and mass increase
experienced in ring particle accelerators... with emphasis on the
fact that the observations are observer dependent and real!
7
Nov 27, 2012, 1:54:20 PM11/27/12
to
by not posting off topic glow ball warmie crap in sci.physics?
Stick it in sci.environment where it should be stuck at.
Marvin the Martian
Nov 27, 2012, 7:26:21 PM11/27/12
to
"equations never describe".
You're just not thinking.
What's the matter with you? Flunk math? Got scared by a math teacher when
you were a kid?
Marvin the Martian
Nov 27, 2012, 7:33:26 PM11/27/12
to
to be memorized and recited instead of as a science to be understood.
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 27, 2012, 11:36:21 PM11/27/12
to
apparent as they are relative.
Sam Wormley
Nov 27, 2012, 11:41:58 PM11/27/12
to
On 11/27/12 10:36 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> SR does not deal with reality. Predictions of SR results are purely
> apparent as they are relative.
Tell that to the designers of circular particle accelerators that
> SR does not deal with reality. Predictions of SR results are purely
> apparent as they are relative.
wouldn't work if mass increase isn't taken into account.
That that to the cosmic muon that make it to the detectors on the
ground.
Tell that to the atomic clocks that "lost time" going around the
world.
Brad Guth
Nov 27, 2012, 11:52:33 PM11/27/12
to
already traveling at nearly 'c' as is. So, what would our planet and
everything associated be like, if it were to stop moving?
Sam Wormley
Nov 27, 2012, 11:54:43 PM11/27/12
to
On 11/24/12 12:30 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> 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.
You have failed to understand what Maxwell's equations were
> 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.
indicating--that the speed of light is the same for all observers.
Physics FAQ: Is The Speed of Light Constant?
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 27, 2012, 11:55:52 PM11/27/12
to
> You're just not thinking.
>
> What's the matter with you? Flunk math? Got scared by a math teacher when
> you were a kid?
difference between equations and concepts read “World of mathematics”
by Bertrand Russell.
Sam Wormley
Nov 28, 2012, 12:01:11 AM11/28/12
to
On 11/25/12 4:44 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> By calling anti-SR a crank, you made the first cardinal mistake. That
> makes you take a physics book in one hand and a cross in the other.
> By calling anti-SR a crank, you made the first cardinal mistake. That
> makes you take a physics book in one hand and a cross in the other.
> By calling Maxwell’s equation to support length contraction, you made
> the second cardinal mistake. Nature doesn’t care for your equations.
> the second cardinal mistake. Nature doesn’t care for your equations.
> The experiment to carry the clock in the airplane was clumsy and error
> prone. I think there are web sites explaining this. But assuming their
> inference was correct, they proved Lorentz right not Einstein.
Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Physics FAQ: Tests of Einstein's two Postulates
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates
Physics FAQ: Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests
Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
reference frames
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf
Vilas Tamhane
Nov 28, 2012, 12:02:49 AM11/28/12
to
So I come back to my original question. How do you explain reciprocity
of SR to students?
Sam Wormley
Nov 28, 2012, 12:10:21 AM11/28/12
to
On 11/27/12 10:55 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Though I am not a mathematician, I always loved it. To know the
> difference between equations and concepts read “World of mathematics”
> by Bertrand Russell.
That was a fun book to read when I was a kid, as was George
> Though I am not a mathematician, I always loved it. To know the
> difference between equations and concepts read “World of mathematics”
> by Bertrand Russell.
Gamow's "One Two Three . . . Infinity".
Have you read Einstein's 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies", and followed the mathematics?
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Sam Wormley
Nov 28, 2012, 12:13:31 AM11/28/12
to
On 11/27/12 11:02 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> They always teach physics (and everything else) as a bunch of facts.
Most colleges and universities have physics labs facilitating the
> They always teach physics (and everything else) as a bunch of facts.
student learning physics for measuring physical phenomena. Even in
high schools.
Have you ever measured the speed of light?
Sam Wormley
Nov 28, 2012, 12:17:10 AM11/28/12
to
on the point of view of the observer.
Sam Wormley
Nov 28, 2012, 12:20:48 AM11/28/12
to
On 11/23/12 9:41 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
> runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
> According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
> runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and
reference frames
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf
This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of the
reference frames
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109.pdf
concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks are
discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of
fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate that
after standard instruction students at all academic levels have serious
difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the role of
observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented that
suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which the
ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity
harmoniously co-exist.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages