Should modern physics be taught in high school?

On Nov 23, 9:40*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message











On Nov 20, 9:19 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff
discovered from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I
understand the need to keep things simple for HS students to digest,
and most of the physics from 400 years ago is still basically the
only stuff that we deal with in everyday life. However, when modern
physics is introduced in university, a lot of students are surprised
by how different physics is at these extreme levels. Many are unable
to grasp it and end up becoming deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and
especially Relativity.

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

Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

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

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

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

Dirk Vdm

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

"Alfonso" wrote in message ...

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. There is no way any fool would establish
by definition that tau(rAB/(c-v)) = tau(rAB/(c+v)) and call tau "linear"
unless he really was a fool.

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

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message ...

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

On Nov 20, 9:19 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff
discovered from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I
understand the need to keep things simple for HS students to digest,
and most of the physics from 400 years ago is still basically the
only stuff that we deal with in everyday life. However, when modern
physics is introduced in university, a lot of students are surprised
by how different physics is at these extreme levels. Many are unable
to grasp it and end up becoming deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and
especially Relativity.

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

Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

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

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

Don't worry, even Dingle failed to understand that. See at the bottom of
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ialFumble.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 befo
-- 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/einst...ures/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!
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message

On Nov 23, 9:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:
"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message











On Nov 20, 9:19 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Most of what is taught in high school physics today is stuff
discovered from 400 years ago, as discovered by Isaac Newton. I
understand the need to keep things simple for HS students to
digest, and most of the physics from 400 years ago is still
basically the only stuff that we deal with in everyday life.
However, when modern physics is introduced in university, a lot of
students are surprised by how different physics is at these
extreme levels. Many are unable to grasp it and end up becoming
deniers about Quantum Mechanics, and especially Relativity.

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

Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

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

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

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

Dirk Vdm

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

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

Understand the difference?

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

Dirk Vdm

On Nov 20, 8:19*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
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/ph...ouble-standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146

In article ,
Alfonso wrote:

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

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

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

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

--

Sam

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

"Salmon Egg" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Alfonso wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Nov 23, 10:41*am, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:19*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:









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

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

* * * * Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

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

Speaking of cane and now Grasshopper...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/wo...pagewanted=all

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

Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody’s?
According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
are aging slowly.

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

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

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

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

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

On Nov 24, 4:59*am, Salmon Egg wrote:
In article ,

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

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

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

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

--

Sam

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

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?

On Nov 24, 6:47*am, Mahipal wrote:
On Nov 23, 10:41*am, Vilas Tamhane wrote:









On Nov 20, 9:19*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:

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

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

* * * * Yousuf Khan

http://www.mndaily.com/2012/11/19/ph...ouble-standard

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

Speaking of cane and now Grasshopper...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/wo...chools-a-cultu...

same ashttp://tinyurl.com/bwckgx2which really implies USA can
complain about China schools without holding a mirror to its own.

Try it. Assume I am a student. Assume you and me are in relative
motion. According to you your clock ticks at normal rate but my clock
runs slow. I will hold a similar view. Whose view is correct?
So natural question is whose clock is running slow? Or nobody’s?
According to you I am ageing slowly than you but according to me you
are aging slowly.

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

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

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

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

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

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