Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions in Relativity
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 88 of 141 (516495)
07-25-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Smooth Operator
07-25-2009 3:06 PM


The point was not even the Twin Paradox. You obviously don't know what I'm talking about.
the cluelessness is strong with this one
I was trying to explain to you, that time dilation was not actually observed and that it can be explained by clock's mechanism slowing down, and not the time itself slowing down.
I know - but that doesn't change the obvious facts that, 1) you are completely wrong, and 2) you are so out of your depth, that you have no clue as to the fact you are wrong.
Tell me, when the physicist-engineers designed the LHC, did they use the mathematics of Special Relativty, or your bullshit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-25-2009 3:06 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-25-2009 3:20 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 92 of 141 (516513)
07-25-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Smooth Operator
07-25-2009 3:20 PM


Why don't you ask your mom how strong it is?
FFS, if you're going to insult, please at least try to make sense...
Explain why
Why? You have no interest in learning. I only teach those that actually show a desire to learn. You're far more happy trying to tell a scientist, whose field happens to be Relativity, that he knows nothing about Relativity. And that's quite funny...
When your mom screems, does she think of you or, me at night?
see, you can do it. That almost makes sense...
Now, once more, 'cos everyone here missed your answer to this one:
Tell me, when the physicist-engineers designed the LHC, did they use the mathematics of Special Relativty, or your bullshit?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-25-2009 3:20 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-25-2009 10:36 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 107 of 141 (516548)
07-26-2009 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rrhain
07-26-2009 1:19 AM


One of the great paradoxes of relativity is that while you are in the changing gravitic field, you don't experience time any differently. That is, one second still seems to take just as much time as it did before.
That's not so much paradox as tautology, unless I'm missing what you mean. There is no paradox in the fact that you will never see your watch's second hand move more quickly or slowly - or at least if you do, it's the last thing you will ever see

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rrhain, posted 07-26-2009 1:19 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Rrhain, posted 07-26-2009 10:28 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 108 of 141 (516551)
07-26-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Smooth Operator
07-25-2009 10:33 PM


This is obviously not true. What actually is being used in the GPS navigation is the Sagnac Effect.
you really are so out of your depth here. Why do you keep trying to make yourself look more and more idiotic with each post? The sagnac effect is just a consequence of a rotating frame. It is trivial. And obviously GPS has to take it into account. It's like saying that we have to take into account coriolos in undestanding the Earth's weather - true, but so fucking trivial.
GPS takes into account effects from both Special Relativity and General Relativity. Saying it doesn't just makes you an idiot, not correct.
You still haven't answered my question regarding the LHC. That is the Large Hadron Collider. It is just the latest of a long line of particle accelerators. These are designed by taking Special Relativity into account. If they do not, they do not work. Particles will not go round the accelerator. Simple. And given that the LHC'c cost is in the BILLIONS, you try to make damn well sure you design it with the right fucking mathematics.
Son Goku mentions the most obvious example of time dilation, and you answer by saying maybe the particles are slowing down What the hell is that supposed to explain? Relativistic muons live many times longer than non-relativistic muons (confirmed by muons generated by cosmic ray collisons in the atmosphere, and by muons generated in accelerators.) What is your aether doing that makes them live so long?
Not so, Einsten himslef said that Relativity can not work without the aether.
Utter bullshit. Show me where Einstein said an aether was required...
quote:
... with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether.
This is not aether - the writer (not Einstein) is refering to a field. And there are many of them. And the Dirac sea you mention was one of the first hints at these fields. You do understand what two theories were combined to discover these fields, don't you? Quantum Mechanics and SPECIAL RELATIVITY. Dirac postulated his "sea" on the back of his RELATIVISTIC EQUATION for the electron, what we call the Dirac Equation. Yes, fields are reminiscent of the aether, but they do not form a frame of rest in any way... except one
The two central theories in all fundemental physics are General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, both of which are 100% based upon Special Relativity. These also happen to be the two most successful theories ever developed by mankind.
But hey, let's follow you and throw out Special Relativity. Now, what's your prediction for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron, and can you show me your working. Using Special Relativity, we get an answer that agrees with experiment to 12 decimal places of accuracy. Can you do better?
I'm sorry but it seem you are the nutcase throwback who is living 100 years in the past.
you dare to call others here the nutcase
Excuse me, but he was the one who was rude to me first. So why should I not give him back what he deserves?
You are not only an idiot, but you are so pathetic that you think that jokes about my mother and incest are funny and appropriate in a discussion here.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-25-2009 10:33 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-26-2009 9:09 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 109 of 141 (516552)
07-26-2009 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2009 1:15 AM


Dirac was referring to a sea of virtual quantum particles not a true 'aether' or 'quintessence' as defined by the Greeks and later naturalists and scientists.
Just a brief caution that we do use the word 'quintessence' in a modern sense in the context of the cosmological constant, vacuum energy, and "dark energy".
The problem is that we often describe both the metric field and the quantum fields as modern-day aethers, but we make the ridiculous assumption that when we do, we are not talking to idiots. It's the same problem with teaching by analogy: the idiots always come back to argue the analogy; or in this case to claim that we accept that there is an aether. What do you do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2009 1:15 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2009 6:25 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 124 of 141 (516588)
07-26-2009 10:20 AM


It is as simple as this...
I'm rather annoyed that my thread has become so polluted. This "discussion" is at the level of trying to argue for a heliocentric solar system, an oblately spherical earth, or the historicity of the Apollo programme. It shouldn't be necessary...
Smooth Operator is making statements that are so out-there, they make many cranks and loons look vaguley sensible - denying that GPS uses SR and GR, denying that accelerators need to use SR, claiming that the Dirac Sea has something to do with attempts to mix aether and SR - this is so stupid that it requires ignoring, not engaging.

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2009 10:29 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 135 by bluegenes, posted 07-26-2009 4:39 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 128 of 141 (516599)
07-26-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Rrhain
07-26-2009 10:28 AM


Each frame of reference thinks it is experiencing time "correctly."
Exactly - I just wonder what experiencing time "incorrectly" would look like

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Rrhain, posted 07-26-2009 10:28 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rrhain, posted 07-26-2009 11:27 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 129 of 141 (516600)
07-26-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2009 10:29 AM


Re: It is as simple as this...
I apologize cavediver.
No apology necessary You and SG manage to remain calm in a way I can barely remember

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2009 10:29 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 132 of 141 (516605)
07-26-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rrhain
07-26-2009 11:27 AM


It's just like in the movies...
My favourite moment is in Lost, where Hurley looks at his hand and expects it to start fading, Back to the Future style

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rrhain, posted 07-26-2009 11:27 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 136 of 141 (516655)
07-26-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by bluegenes
07-26-2009 4:39 PM


Re: It is as simple as this...
Ask Smooth Operator on the new thread he has started, and you'll find he's one. I kid you not!
Just read it, and oh... my... god...
Just when you thought you'd seen it all

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by bluegenes, posted 07-26-2009 4:39 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 139 of 141 (516674)
07-26-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2009 6:06 PM


Re: It is as simple as this...
Oh like these:
And I was conversing with this scum??? Think I need a bath... in bleach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2009 6:06 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024