|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I am illiterate, is relativity for me?
On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Vakium wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: Hey there I am completely illiterate How probable is that I gonne understand relativity very fast? Quite probable: relativity is exactly for people like you. Different people are disappearing quickly: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html "But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that, the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability for critical thinking in order to function in their daily environment." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world- class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I am illiterate, is relativity for me?
On Jun 24, 10:04*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Vakium wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Hey there I am completely illiterate How probable is that I gonne understand relativity very fast? Quite probable: relativity is exactly for people like you. Different people are disappearing quickly: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html "But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that, the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability for critical thinking in order to function in their daily environment." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world- class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" For instance, only illiterate individuals can teach or understand why the speed of light is constant while different people usually get paralysed and never recover completely: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition!" http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2e9dc76d964d48 Steve Carlip: "First, it doesn't quite make sense to talk about the speed of light changing, because c is a dimensionful object (that is, it has units, in this case meters/second). Such a quantity isn't really measurable, since the universe isn't filled with standard meter sticks to measure distances and clocks to measure time." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I am illiterate, is relativity for me?
On Jun 24, 4:04*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Vakium wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Hey there I am completely illiterate How probable is that I gonne understand relativity very fast? Quite probable: relativity is exactly for people like you. Different people are disappearing quickly: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html "But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that, the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability for critical thinking in order to function in their daily environment." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world- class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" Pentcho Valev Hi Pentcho, Trust me that you will be an idiot in physics unless you read and work the problem sets in any Physics 101 texbook. If you wish to have an understanding of physics, that's where you must begin, otherwise you would be posting about nonsense bable that you don't even grasp for the balance of your life, just as you now do mow, not unlike a majority of the posters on the newsgroup, Without this basic foundation of knowledge, every post you make will be regarded as humor by the 10% of actually educated readers that read this newsgroup. If you are not simply joking with your posts, and really wish to learn some actual physics, just ask the posters here for some textbooks that you should read and digest. Still, realize that a quality Physics 101 textbook is not something that you can digest in an evening, and the totality of the problem sets contained my take you a year, as they do with tuition paying college students, Realize that I don't intend this to be a mean spirited post, simply someone trying to be helpful. Pentcho, realize that unless you know and understand how to empoly the material in Physics 101 texts, and grasp the concepts,, you cannot understand any of the more advanced physics. Harry C. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I am illiterate, is relativity for me?
On Jun 24, 10:49*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 24, 4:04*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Vakium wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Hey there I am completely illiterate How probable is that I gonne understand relativity very fast? Quite probable: relativity is exactly for people like you. Different people are disappearing quickly: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html "But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that, the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability for critical thinking in order to function in their daily environment." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world- class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" Pentcho Valev Hi Pentcho, Trust me that you will be an idiot in physics unless you read and work the problem sets in any Physics 101 texbook. *If you wish to have an understanding of physics, that's where you must begin, otherwise you would be posting about nonsense bable that you don't even grasp for the balance of your life, just as you now do mow, not unlike a majority of the posters on the newsgroup, Without this basic foundation of knowledge, every post you make will be regarded as humor by the 10% of actually educated readers that read this newsgroup. If you are not simply joking with your posts, and really wish to learn some actual physics, just ask the posters here for some textbooks that you should read and digest. *Still, realize that a quality Physics 101 textbook is not something that you can digest in an evening, and the totality of the problem sets contained my take you a year, as they do with tuition paying college students, Realize that I don't intend this to be a mean spirited post, simply someone trying to be helpful. Pentcho, realize that unless you know and understand how to empoly the material in Physics 101 texts, and grasp the concepts,, you cannot understand any of the more advanced physics. Harry C. Bravo Harry C.! I was just wondering if the gravitational frequency shift: f' = f(1+V/c^2) confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka proves the validity of Einstein's 1911 equation: c' = c(1+V/c^2) What does Physics 101 textbook say? Your brother zombie Paul Andersen says Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...7ab189dc1bb91b Master Tom Roberts is more careful but essentially agrees with brother zombie Paul Andersen: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2 However neither brother zombie Paul Andersen nor Master Tom Roberts would ever discuss the relation between f'=f(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+V/ c^2). Is this relation explained in Physics 101 textbook? Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I am illiterate, is relativity for me?
On Jun 24, 9:57*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 24, 10:49*pm, " wrote: On Jun 24, 4:04*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: On Jun 23, 9:50 pm, Vakium wrote in sci.physics.relativity: Hey there I am completely illiterate How probable is that I gonne understand relativity very fast? Quite probable: relativity is exactly for people like you. Different people are disappearing quickly: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html "But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that, the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability for critical thinking in order to function in their daily environment." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2 "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world- class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" Pentcho Valev Hi Pentcho, Trust me that you will be an idiot in physics unless you read and work the problem sets in any Physics 101 texbook. *If you wish to have an understanding of physics, that's where you must begin, otherwise you would be posting about nonsense bable that you don't even grasp for the balance of your life, just as you now do mow, not unlike a majority of the posters on the newsgroup, Without this basic foundation of knowledge, every post you make will be regarded as humor by the 10% of actually educated readers that read this newsgroup. If you are not simply joking with your posts, and really wish to learn some actual physics, just ask the posters here for some textbooks that you should read and digest. *Still, realize that a quality Physics 101 textbook is not something that you can digest in an evening, and the totality of the problem sets contained my take you a year, as they do with tuition paying college students, Realize that I don't intend this to be a mean spirited post, simply someone trying to be helpful. Pentcho, realize that unless you know and understand how to empoly the material in Physics 101 texts, and grasp the concepts,, you cannot understand any of the more advanced physics. Harry C. Bravo Harry C.! I was just wondering if the gravitational frequency shift: f' = f(1+V/c^2) confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka proves the validity of Einstein's 1911 equation: c' = c(1+V/c^2) What does Physics 101 textbook say? Your brother zombie Paul Andersen says Einstein's 1911 equation is wrong: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/507ab189dc1... Master Tom Roberts is more careful but essentially agrees with brother zombie Paul Andersen: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/44abc7dbb30... However neither brother zombie Paul Andersen nor Master Tom Roberts would ever discuss the relation between f'=f(1+V/c^2) and c'=c(1+V/ c^2). Is this relation explained in Physics 101 textbook? Pentcho Valev - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Pentcho, first of all you don't grasp even the basic nature of the experiment that you've cited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment It's due time for you to go out and purchase a copy of Sear and Zemanski, Halliday and Resnick, or some other Physics 101 textbook and learn what in the Hell your are posting about! You posts make it manifestly clear that you have no grasp of the subject matter that you are posting about. Every educated reader of this newsgroup has long ago realized that, so who are you trying to impress with your posted nonsense? Harry C. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I am illiterate, is relativity for me?
On Jun 25, 4:22*pm, " wrote:
Pentcho, first of all you don't grasp even the basic nature of the experiment that you've cited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment Bravo Harry C.! Let us see what Wikipedia says (are YOU the author?): Wikipedia: "When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift." This sounds a bit silly to me. Does it to you? If yes, let us correct silly Wikipedia, together: Harry C. and Pentcho V., together: "When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to change in its speed." Sounds better doesn't it? We could make good science, we Harry C. and Pentcho V., together. Pentcho Valev It's due time for you to go out and purchase a copy of Sear and Zemanski, Halliday and Resnick, or some other Physics 101 textbook and learn what in the Hell your are posting about! *You posts make it manifestly clear that you have no grasp of the subject matter that you are posting about. Every educated reader of this newsgroup has long ago realized that, so who are you trying to impress with your posted nonsense? Harry C. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | June 5th 07 12:14 AM |
Dusnòmia blasts AtomicRocket ( How to deal with the scientifically illiterate) | Autymn D. C. | Astronomy Misc | 6 | January 16th 07 06:14 AM |
Relativity | entity | Misc | 10 | August 19th 04 11:37 AM |
Relativity FAQ | Nathan Jones | Misc | 4 | December 9th 03 11:17 AM |
4-D in Relativity (was Moi) | G EddieA95 | Science | 0 | November 11th 03 07:00 AM |