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

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

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.

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

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.

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.