A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Should modern physics be taught in high school?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old December 21st 12, 10:20 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.chem
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Should modern physics be taught in high school?

"Martin Brown" wrote in message news
On 18/12/2012 18:16, Salmon Egg wrote:
In article ,
(Steve Willner) wrote:

That said, apparently some Advanced Placement physics classes teach
special relativity successfully. They manage it by requiring
students to come in already prepared with a good mathematical
understanding of reference frames and classical kinematics. With
that background, the actual math of SR is not very hard.


What preparation is necessary? A true knowledge of high school
mathematics, elementary algebra, plane geometry, and trigonometry, is
more than adequate for special relativity.


Although this is true and there exists a derivation of the relativistic
transform equations that relies on nothing more than a very clear head,
high school algebra to consider the passing of two metre rules at a
speed v - the proof is still well beyond most high school students.

The remaining ideas required
are PHYSICAL! No amount of mathematical training will overcome a
misunderstanding of the simple physics involved.

That the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant in any inertial frame
is the fundamental starting point. Everything else is a consequence of
this invariance of physical laws - and observations confirm it.

But too often the Lorentz transforms are just presented to students deus
ex machina (especially in electronic engineering) and the result is the
all too predictable droolings of the likes of Androcles and former
editor(s) of Wireless World and other electronics trade press.

They still don't seem to have figured it out more than a century later!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
================================================== ====
The speed of light in empty space is source dependent, and observation
confirms it. Anyone with a clear head doesn't accept your drooling mysticism
and lies, Brown.
As for your "fundamental starting point" ... that's ****ing hilarious and
directly contradicted by Einstein, you poor deranged *******.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img11.gif

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.






  #272  
Old December 21st 12, 04:56 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.chem
Salmon Egg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Should modern physics be taught in high school?

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

That the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant in any inertial frame
is the fundamental starting point. Everything else is a consequence of
this invariance of physical laws - and observations confirm it.

But too often the Lorentz transforms are just presented to students deus
ex machina (especially in electronic engineering) and the result is the
all too predictable droolings of the likes of Androcles and former
editor(s) of Wireless World and other electronics trade press.


The real problem is that many of the self-proclaimed "educators" who
make believe they can explain SR do not really understand the subject
themselves. As you suggest, the Lorentz transformation is a consequence
of the physics--not the physics. One may argue these (Lorentz and
constant c) are equivalent, The Occam razor approach points to using
constant c.

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
  #273  
Old December 21st 12, 05:06 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Should modern physics be taught in high school?

On Nov 27, 9:17*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/27/12 10:52 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 27, 8:41 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
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
* * 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.


In relationship to much of the mass within our universe, our planet is
already traveling at nearly 'c' as is. *So, what would our planet and
everything associated be like, if it were to stop moving?


* *Whether something is in a state of motion or at rest depends strictly
* *on the point of view of the observer.


That's exactly why 'c' is just relative and not actually representing
anything else. Of course, since any individual photon wave and its
quantum singularity particle do not actually move, but instead only
exist once in any given location, is perhaps the best indication of
aether or dark/clear matter doing its thing.
  #274  
Old December 21st 12, 05:11 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Should modern physics be taught in high school?

On Nov 28, 6:45Â*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/28/12 8:23 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

Does motion depend on opinion? I thought it is acquired after
acceleration.


Mean velocity: Â*v = ∆r/∆t

Instantaneous velocity: Â*v = dr/dt

Whether a body is in motion (v â‰* 0) or at rest (v = 0) strictly
depend on the perspective of the observer. Not an opinion, but
an observation (measurement).


Are we accelerating or decelerating in any given direction relative to
other galaxies?

Andromeda of equal or possibly greater galactic mass applies a 300+ km/
sec of relative blueshift or negative redshift motion to us. So, what
sort of distortion of time and gravity does that do to us?
  #275  
Old December 22nd 12, 02:23 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Should modern physics be taught in high school?

On 12/21/12 10:11 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 28, 6:45 am, Sam wrote:
On 11/28/12 8:23 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

Does motion depend on opinion? I thought it is acquired after
acceleration.

Mean velocity: v = ∆r/∆t

Instantaneous velocity: v = dr/dt

Whether a body is in motion (v â‰* 0) or at rest (v = 0) strictly
depend on the perspective of the observer. Not an opinion, but
an observation (measurement).

Are we accelerating or decelerating in any given direction relative to
other galaxies?


Use Doppler to measure the relative velocity to another galaxy. Do it
again some years later. Has the relative velocity changed?

On the larger scale, galaxies are rushing away from us in all
directions. And that expansion rate is increasing (acceleration).

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html



  #276  
Old December 22nd 12, 02:26 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default Should modern physics be taught in high school?

On 11/28/12 9:19 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:09 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/28/12 8:55 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:









On Nov 28, 7:45 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/28/12 8:23 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:


Does motion depend on opinion? I thought it is acquired after
acceleration.


Mean velocity: v = ∆r/∆t


Instantaneous velocity: v = dr/dt


Whether a body is in motion (v â‰* 0) or at rest (v = 0) strictly
depend on the perspective of the observer. Not an opinion, but
an observation (measurement).


But measurement alone would lead me to uncomfortable assumption. For
example, while in a moving car, I may be forced to conclude that I am
not moving at all but the road is slipping below me.


Take for example aerial refueling, also called air refueling,
in-flight refueling (IFR), air-to-air refueling (AAR) or tanking,
is the process of transferring fuel from one aircraft (the tanker)
to another (the receiver) during flight.

With respect to the ground the planes have velocity of hundreds of
miles per hour, yet their velocity with respect to each other becomes
inched per second and eventually zero. From the perspective of one
aircraft, the other's velocity is zero. They have no relative motion.

From their perspective the earth is rotating underneath them--similar
to the earth rotating under the wheels of your car.


Already I am confused. Why do you make me more confused? I always
thought that rotation of earth as seen by the pilots in plane is
apparent and is not a part of reality.

You suddenly parachuted from plane to car. Now that you are by my side
in the car, please tell me if it is true that the road is slipping
underneath or the car is moving on the road?


Sorry -- Often it is necessary to find common language and experience.
Some conversation are better over a beer or lunch.

-SAm


  #277  
Old December 22nd 12, 06:08 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,sci.chem
1treePetrifiedForestLane
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 974
Default Should modern physics be taught in high school?

it is not "the velocity of light," because
it has no "particular" direction, as a wave
(waving omnidirectionally in space at its wavefront,
cf. Huyghens et al).

minkowki soured the whole study of relativity,
by mistakenly dimensionalizing time,
with the bizarre illustrations of lightcones and Feynman diagrams ...
just use quaternions!

That the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant in any inertial frame
is the fundamental starting point. Everything else is a consequence of
this invariance of physical laws - and observations confirm it.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Super Science for High School Physics William Mook[_2_] Policy 1 October 25th 10 03:57 AM
blonde boarding girl school girl high landstown school soccer umfcatholic school girl [email protected] Misc 0 March 24th 08 11:41 AM
Modern physics the new Alchemy ? GatherNoMoss Policy 0 January 28th 07 04:20 PM
Modern Physics Letters A - TOC alert YH Khoo Research 0 October 6th 03 10:56 AM
Int. Journal of Modern Physics D - TOC alert YH Khoo Research 0 October 1st 03 11:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.