Science and Technology news... :: View topic

harry · Guest

"Strich.9" <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dd26d6f-6d3e-4ca3-b299-0320b3fc6e5a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
[quote]"Relativity = Stupidity"

That is a very difficult equation to teach.

We are only using one example to teach the subject. Past experience
of Professor Androcles on teaching this subject has shown that pupils
learn extremely slowly, if at all. This series of classes hopes to
teach this difficult subject on a step by step basis.

Example 1: Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M
with clock M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
velocity v.

In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M did
not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much pain, but
eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.

We skip "R=S 102" since the course material teaches that the rate of
clock E in frame E did not change after the external clock M moved.
It is common sense that since no change occurred in frame E, then no
change must occur in the rate of clock E. Of course, the course "R=S
102" may be opened for those who are having difficulty in the
succeeding course.

Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change after
it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not change
after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the conclusion must be
that clocks E and M are in synch before and after the M clock moved.

Let me repeat the argument:

Rates of clocks E and M did not change after clock M moved. Since the
rates were equal before the move, then the rates must be equal after
the move. In short, the clocks stay in synch.

The floor is now open for questions...
[/quote]
NO question needed. Any first year student should be able to point out the
error in this similar case (talking about Stupidity!):

" Let frame M move with respect to E, with relative constant velocity v. The
kinetic energy of M, in frame M did not change. The kinetic energies of E
and M did not change after M moved. Since the kinetic energies were equal
before the move, then the kinetic energies must be equal after the move. "

If only you had been smart enough to listen...

Harald

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax · Guest

Strich.9 wrote:
[quote]"Relativity = Stupidity"

[/quote]
WTF is this crap doing in sci.chem?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

David Bostwick · Guest

In article <6l4ed1Fah8thU3@mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Strich.9 wrote:
"Relativity = Stupidity"

WTF is this crap doing in sci.chem?

[/quote]
Notice that the original header listed google groups.

Uncle Al · Guest

"Strich.9" wrote:
[quote]
"Relativity = Stupidity"
[snip crap][/quote]

http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes

<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

<http://loscuatroojos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/youranidiot.jpg>
<http://www.dementedferret.com/contents/media/t_Idiot-Seeks-Village.jpg>
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Dunning-Kruger effect (2000 Ig Nobel Prize)

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

fishfry · Guest

In article
<1dd26d6f-6d3e-4ca3-b299-0320b3fc6e5a@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
"Strich.9" <strich.9992@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]"Relativity = Stupidity"

[/quote]
apparently the physics trolls are worked up about relativity the same
way the math trolls are worked up about set theory.

Uncle Ben · Guest

On Oct 8, 3:49 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 3:29 pm, fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfish...@your-mailbox.com> wrote:

In article
1dd26d6f-6d3e-4ca3-b299-0320b3fc6...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,

"Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Relativity = Stupidity"

apparently the physics trolls are worked up about relativity the same
way the math trolls are worked up about set theory.

Please see:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d6a4f635...

I>m halfway to proving relativity wrong. Let me finish this
relativity thing, then perhaps I can help resolve the Cantor
'dilemma'.
[/quote]
Strich you are not even near showing that you know what SR says, much
less proving it wrong.

Uncle Ben

David Bostwick · Guest

In article <f27753b3-c5df-46c8-a149-e4085ed00950@b30g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, strich.9991@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 3:29=A0pm, fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfish...@your-mailbox.com> wrote:
In article
1dd26d6f-6d3e-4ca3-b299-0320b3fc6...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,

=A0"Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Relativity =3D Stupidity"

apparently the physics trolls are worked up about relativity the same
way the math trolls are worked up about set theory.

Please see:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d6a4f6357ea393=
52?scoring=3Dd&

I>m halfway to proving relativity wrong. Let me finish this
relativity thing, then perhaps I can help resolve the Cantor
'dilemma'.
[/quote]
Archie has a brother?

xxein · Guest

On Oct 8, 2:32 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 1:33 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Relativity = Stupidity"

That is a very difficult equation to teach.

We are only using one example to teach the subject. Past experience
of Professor Androcles on teaching this subject has shown that pupils
learn extremely slowly, if at all. This series of classes hopes to
teach this difficult subject on a step by step basis.

Example 1: Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M
with clock M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
velocity v.

In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M did
not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much pain, but
eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.

We skip "R=S 102" since the course material teaches that the rate of
clock E in frame E did not change after the external clock M moved.
It is common sense that since no change occurred in frame E, then no
change must occur in the rate of clock E. Of course, the course "R=S
102" may be opened for those who are having difficulty in the
succeeding course.

Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change after
it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not change
after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the conclusion must be
that clocks E and M are in synch before and after the M clock moved.

Let me repeat the argument:

Rates of clocks E and M did not change after clock M moved. Since the
rates were equal before the move, then the rates must be equal after
the move. In short, the clocks stay in synch.

The floor is now open for questions...

OK, I>ll be straight man in this little show.

Between

In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M did
not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much pain, but
eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.

and

Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change after
it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not change
after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the conclusion must be
that clocks E and M are in synch before and after the M clock moved.

you made a significant change in wording. You went from "the rate of
clock
M, in frame M did not change" to "the rate of clock M did not
change".

The first statement is true, but the second one is incomplete.
It is stated as if time were absolute.

The rate of clock M did not change RELATIVE to what frame?
If frame M, it is true.
If frame E, it is not, according to the theory of RELATIVITY.

The theory of RELATIVITY says that the rate of a clock is RELATIVE to
its velocity.
Clock M still has zero velocity "in frame M", but velocity v "in frame
E."

[I have always resisted the language "in a frame of reference." It is
much clearer to say "with respect to" a frame of reference. That
avoids the silly fight over which frame something is "in". It makes
no sense to argue over which frame the object is "with respect to,"
since the object can be observed with respect to any frame of
reference.)

So, I didn>t pose a question, but an argument. The question, dear
teacher, is,
"Am I not right?" Note that I don>t even claim that SR is true
(although I believe that it has not been proved false). I just claim
that it is not self-contradictory.

Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
xxein: But it is self-contradictory. You just haven>t gotten to the
objective/logical level yet.

I still like SRT-GRT for what it allows us to do with a confidence.
It is a physics though: not the physic. As such, it is a mere
engineering tool.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax · Guest

strich.9991@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 3:02 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com
wrote:
Strich.9 wrote:
"Relativity = Stupidity"
WTF is this crap doing in sci.chem?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff

Are you a chemist complaining of being bothered?
or a physicist complaining of airing dirty laundry?
[/quote]
I don>t frequent sci.chem to read the rantings of the people that
persuaded by to unsub from sci.physics years ago.
WTF has any of what you>re peddling got to do with chemistry?
Maybe we need sci.chem.research to keep the loons away. Works on SPR.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

harry · Guest

<strich.9991@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9951ac5c-1946-4b6e-abcf-92cc3445793d@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 8, 2:00 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
snip

A) What is the kinetic energy of a particle all by itself?
[/quote]
That depends on the reference system you choose

[quote]B) What is the clock rate of a clock all by itself?
[/quote]
That depends similarly on the reference system you choose.

[quote]Obviously A has no answer while B has. So your KE ~ time analogy is
false. Next question...
[/quote]
Too bad you didn>t want to learn...

harry · Guest

<strich.9991@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9c6e49a-8086-4c15-a24f-c941d8657917@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 2:32 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 1:33 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Relativity = Stupidity"

That is a very difficult equation to teach.

We are only using one example to teach the subject. Past experience
of Professor Androcles on teaching this subject has shown that pupils
learn extremely slowly, if at all. This series of classes hopes to
teach this difficult subject on a step by step basis.

Example 1: Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M
with clock M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
velocity v.

In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M did
not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much pain, but
eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.

We skip "R=S 102" since the course material teaches that the rate of
clock E in frame E did not change after the external clock M moved.
It is common sense that since no change occurred in frame E, then no
change must occur in the rate of clock E. Of course, the course "R=S
102" may be opened for those who are having difficulty in the
succeeding course.

Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change after
it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not change
after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the conclusion must be
that clocks E and M are in synch before and after the M clock moved.

Let me repeat the argument:

Rates of clocks E and M did not change after clock M moved. Since the
rates were equal before the move, then the rates must be equal after
the move. In short, the clocks stay in synch.

The floor is now open for questions...

OK, I>ll be straight man in this little show.

Between

In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M did
not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much pain, but
eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.

and

Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change after
it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not change
after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the conclusion must be
that clocks E and M are in synch before and after the M clock moved.

you made a significant change in wording. You went from "the rate of
clock
M, in frame M did not change" to "the rate of clock M did not
change".

The first statement is true, but the second one is incomplete.
It is stated as if time were absolute.

The rate of clock M did not change RELATIVE to what frame?
If frame M, it is true.
If frame E, it is not, according to the theory of RELATIVITY.

The theory of RELATIVITY says that the rate of a clock is RELATIVE to
its velocity.
Clock M still has zero velocity "in frame M", but velocity v "in frame
E."

[I have always resisted the language "in a frame of reference." It is
much clearer to say "with respect to" a frame of reference. That
avoids the silly fight over which frame something is "in". It makes
no sense to argue over which frame the object is "with respect to,"
since the object can be observed with respect to any frame of
reference.)

So, I didn>t pose a question, but an argument. The question, dear
teacher, is,
"Am I not right?" Note that I don>t even claim that SR is true
(although I believe that it has not been proved false). I just claim
that it is not self-contradictory.

Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
: Pardon the wording. The reference in both cases is frame M. The rate
: of clock M in frame M remains the same, so that its rate at frame M
: prior to its move, and its rate at frame M, after it moved, are
: equal. This was debated in RS 101 and eventually agreed upon. Thanks.

Even AFTER it has been pointed out to you twice by different people in
different words, you don>t get it. "Stupidity 103" indeed!

doug · Guest

strich.9991@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]On Oct 8, 3:29 pm, fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfish...@your-mailbox.com> wrote:

In article
1dd26d6f-6d3e-4ca3-b299-0320b3fc6...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,

"Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Relativity = Stupidity"

apparently the physics trolls are worked up about relativity the same
way the math trolls are worked up about set theory.

Please see:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d6a4f6357ea39352?scoring=d&

I>m halfway to proving relativity wrong. Let me finish this
relativity thing, then perhaps I can help resolve the Cantor
'dilemma'.
[/quote]
In other words, he has lost so many times that he is getting
tired of looking stupid and is now hoping to find a new area
to argue about.

Guest · Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

On Oct 8, 7:30 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
[quote]strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9951ac5c-1946-4b6e-abcf-92cc3445793d@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 8, 2:00 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
snip

A) What is the kinetic energy of a particle all by itself?

That depends on the reference system you choose

B) What is the clock rate of a clock all by itself?

That depends similarly on the reference system you choose.

Obviously A has no answer while B has. So your KE ~ time analogy is
false. Next question...

Too bad you didn>t want to learn...
[/quote]
Too bad you remain stupid. KE requires a reference frame. Time does
not. Did Enstein ever say time stops in a single reference frame? I
thought so.

If you have forgotten, KE <> time.
(start with the units if you are having difficulty)

PD · Guest

On Oct 9, 8:04 am, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 7:30 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:

strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:9951ac5c-1946-4b6e-abcf-92cc3445793d@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com....

On Oct 8, 2:00 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
snip

A) What is the kinetic energy of a particle all by itself?

That depends on the reference system you choose

B) What is the clock rate of a clock all by itself?

That depends similarly on the reference system you choose.

Obviously A has no answer while B has. So your KE ~ time analogy is
false. Next question...

Too bad you didn>t want to learn...

Too bad you remain stupid. KE requires a reference frame. Time does
not.
[/quote]
Sure it does.

[quote] Did Enstein ever say time stops in a single reference frame?
[/quote]
*Stopping* does is not a requirement for frame-dependence.

[quote] I
thought so.

If you have forgotten, KE <> time.
(start with the units if you are having difficulty)[/quote]

Uncle Ben · Guest

On Oct 8, 9:17 pm, xxein <xxe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 2:32 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:

On Oct 8, 1:33 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Relativity = Stupidity"

That is a very difficult equation to teach.

We are only using one example to teach the subject. Past experience
of Professor Androcles on teaching this subject has shown that pupils
learn extremely slowly, if at all. This series of classes hopes to
teach this difficult subject on a step by step basis.

Example 1: Clocks E and M in inertial frames E and M are at rest with
respect to one another. Clock rates are of course equal. Let frame M
with clock M now move with respect to E, with relative constant
velocity v.

In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M did
not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much pain, but
eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.

We skip "R=S 102" since the course material teaches that the rate of
clock E in frame E did not change after the external clock M moved.
It is common sense that since no change occurred in frame E, then no
change must occur in the rate of clock E. Of course, the course "R=S
102" may be opened for those who are having difficulty in the
succeeding course.

Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change after
it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not change
after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the conclusion must be
that clocks E and M are in synch before and after the M clock moved.

Let me repeat the argument:

Rates of clocks E and M did not change after clock M moved. Since the
rates were equal before the move, then the rates must be equal after
the move. In short, the clocks stay in synch.

The floor is now open for questions...

OK, I>ll be straight man in this little show.

Between

In "R=S 101", it was proven that the rate of clock M, in frame M did
not change. Many pupils reached this conclusion with much pain, but
eventually everybody learned this now accepted fact.

and

Here in "R=S 103" we use still the same example above, and we put
together the fact that since the rate of clock M did not change after
it moved (see course RS 101) and the rate of clock E did not change
after the M clock moved (course RS 102), then the conclusion must be
that clocks E and M are in synch before and after the M clock moved.

you made a significant change in wording. You went from "the rate of
clock
M, in frame M did not change" to "the rate of clock M did not
change".

The first statement is true, but the second one is incomplete.
It is stated as if time were absolute.

The rate of clock M did not change RELATIVE to what frame?
If frame M, it is true.
If frame E, it is not, according to the theory of RELATIVITY.

The theory of RELATIVITY says that the rate of a clock is RELATIVE to
its velocity.
Clock M still has zero velocity "in frame M", but velocity v "in frame
E."

[I have always resisted the language "in a frame of reference." It is
much clearer to say "with respect to" a frame of reference. That
avoids the silly fight over which frame something is "in". It makes
no sense to argue over which frame the object is "with respect to,"
since the object can be observed with respect to any frame of
reference.)

So, I didn>t pose a question, but an argument. The question, dear
teacher, is,
"Am I not right?" Note that I don>t even claim that SR is true
(although I believe that it has not been proved false). I just claim
that it is not self-contradictory.

Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: But it is self-contradictory. You just haven>t gotten to the
objective/logical level yet.

I still like SRT-GRT for what it allows us to do with a confidence.
It is a physics though: not the physic. As such, it is a mere
engineering tool.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
There is no contradiction between a clock having one rate w.r.t. one
frame of reference and another rate w.r.t. a different frame of
reference. You may think it false, and experiement will judge whether
it is or not, but there is no contradiction.

If you think otherwise, tell us what the contradiction is.

Uncle Ben


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Chemistry Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 2 of 6