|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |