Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Strich.9 · Guest

"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...

dlzc · Guest

On Oct 8, 10:33 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"Relativity = Stupidity"
[/quote]
Well, you seem to have caught the stupid disease then. Any idea why
you think this needs to be cross-posted to sci.chem and sci.math?

David A. Smith

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

On Oct 8, 1:44 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Strich.9 <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote in message

1dd26d6f-6d3e-4ca3-b299-0320b3fc6...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com

"Relativity = Stupidity"

That is a very difficult equation to teach.

Very:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DisprovenForGo...

Dirk Vdm
[/quote]
The Cheerleader must be getting ready for another game.

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

On Oct 8, 1:41 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 10:33 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Relativity = Stupidity"

Well, you seem to have caught the stupid disease then. Any idea why
you think this needs to be cross-posted to sci.chem and sci.math?

David A. Smith
[/quote]
Do I really need to answer that? Relativity is being implicated in
chemistry, and relativity uses a lot of mathematics.

And also, I am sure there are extremely bright minds in chem and
math,
perhaps more so than in physics, that may want to join in the
discussion.

Anyway, what is your rationale for censorship?

Strich.9 · Guest

Let us use symbols:

1) Let E and M represent the frames and their respective clocks;
2) Etr and Etv represent the time intervals in E before and after M
moved
3) Mtr and Mtv represent the time intervals in M before and after it
moved

As per RS101
Mtr=Mtv

As per RS 102
Etr=Etv

Since by definition Mtr=Etr

Then Mtv = Mtr = Etr = Etv

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

On Oct 8, 2:00 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote:
[quote]snip
[/quote]
A) What is the kinetic energy of a particle all by itself?

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

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

Uncle Ben · Guest

On Oct 8, 1:33 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
[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]
OK, I>ll be straight man in this little show.

Between

[quote]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[/quote]

[quote]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.

[/quote]
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

PD · Guest

On Oct 8, 12:33 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
[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]
Well, we>re off to a good start. So far 6 out of 10 posts are written
by one person. That>s usually a sign of someone who is talking to hear
himself talk.

PD

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

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.

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

On 8 oct, 13:33, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
[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]
You have first to understand how clocks keep ticking in synchronicity.
According to relativity, the moving clock M will lose synchronicity
with respect to the clock at rest in frame E but, interestingly, for
an observer moving with that M clock, its rate will continue to be the
same. So that observer with clock M can not tell if his clock is
faster or slower with respect to the clock E, unless that observer
with clock M passes along synchronized clocks located in frame E so
that he can compare the readings.
Just saying that both clocks were in synch at t=0 is no enough to
ensure that they continue to be in synch when one of them is moving
at a very high speed.

Miguel Rios

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

On Oct 8, 3:02 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]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
[/quote]
Are you a chemist complaining of being bothered?
or a physicist complaining of airing dirty laundry?

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

On Oct 8, 2:38 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 12:33 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...

Well, we>re off to a good start. So far 6 out of 10 posts are written
by one person. That>s usually a sign of someone who is talking to hear
himself talk.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Sadly you>re not off to a good start. You may be close to the troll
road. Be careful. Fines are hefty.

Unless you have agreed with the proposition, then just state it as so.

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

On Oct 8, 3:14 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[quote]"Strich.9" wrote:

"Relativity = Stupidity"

[snip crap]

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

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....
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 Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
[/quote]
Al, there is no point in retreating to your security blanket. The
propositions being discussed are simple enough. If you cannot
understand what I am saying, let me know so I can explain it better.

Guest · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: Relativity = Stupidity 103

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

dlzc · Guest

Dear iqgoo...:

On Oct 8, 10:53 am, iqgoo...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 1:41 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

On Oct 8, 10:33 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Relativity = Stupidity"

Well, you seem to have caught the stupid
disease then. Any idea why you think this
needs to be cross-posted to sci.chem and
sci.math?

Do I really need to answer that?
[/quote]
It wasn>t directed to you.

[quote]Relativity is being implicated in chemistry,
and relativity uses a lot of mathematics.

And also, I am sure there are extremely
bright minds in chem and math, perhaps
more so than in physics, that may want to
join in the discussion.

Anyway, what is your rationale for censorship?
[/quote]
Well, let>s see:
- all four newsgroups have charters, where the people that pay for the
hard drive space and the access for all to see, agreed to host this
"mess" based on rules, including topics of discussion, and this all
have something to do with "news".
- I cannot alter / limit what "Strich.9" says, so it is not
censorship.
- Science requires antagonistic review, to test the claims made.

So the question is, why do you include inappropriate newsgroups, not
discuss news, propose that *I* must be limited in what *I* can say,
and not challenge those that clearly know nothing about the scientific
method?

David A. Smith


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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 1 of 6