Relativity

[BidenPresident]

You are a strange one.

Possibly mentally ill.

 

[Trumpet]

Sure. My sermon would generally address the reasons that adopting the "style" of teenage girls gossiping at the mall detract from any credibility that you might wish to establish.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Sounds to me like you consume way too much hard stuff, maybe you ought to consider laying-off the stuff for a while .

 

[Trumpet]

LOL. Sure. So your googling wound you up on CWR. LOL.

And it's not like you actually understand how vector distances are calculated.

We've already got one weirdo on this thread, so now, you're going to be weirdo number 2.

 

[BidenPresident]

We've already got one weirdo on this thread, so now, you're going to be weirdo number 2.

Or, same person.

 

[Trumpet]

Or, same person.

Or two of the same caliber.

 

[BidenPresident]

Or two of the same caliber.

There seems to be troll (monster under the bridge) waiting for a philosophy thread so they can ruin it. Not sure the motive other than mental illness.

 

[Trumpet]

There seems to be troll (monster under the bridge) waiting for a philosophy thread so they can ruin it. Not sure the motive other than mental illness.

I think that mental illness say it all.

 

[Cypress]

LOL. And it's not like you actually understand how vector distances are calculated.

Your loss. It's rather fun. You probably don't know how to do it, since you don't understand vector equations or even statistical math.

You and Perry PhD think vectors are exotic mathmatical abstractions.

That is a tell you have never had introductory high school or college physics.

Vectors are not exotic. It's first semester introductory college physics.

Vector is a fancy word for any force or property that has magnitude and direction.

In two dimensional vectors, which is what is generally going to be used in introductory Newtonian mechanics, calculating a vector magnitude from it's two components just needs the Pythagorean theorem. That's ninth grade math. Nothing exotic about it.


Now the 4d vectors of spacetime intervals are farther out there. But the same basic principles of magnitude and direction apply. With the added component of time.

 

[Cypress]

There seems to be troll (monster under the bridge) waiting for a philosophy thread so they can ruin it. Not sure the motive other than mental illness.

IBDumbass, IntoTheBulverism, and Colloqy aka Perry PhD aren't playing with a full deck.

 

[BidenPresident]

IBDumbass, IntoTheBulverism, and Colloqy aka Perry PhD aren't playing with a full deck.

Sad folk.

 

[IBDaMann]

Relativity in a non accelerating inertial reference frame

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame. You don't understand the material you are using to play "pretend scientist."

All classical relativity means is that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in different non accelerating reference frames.

Too funny! It means that for any experiments anywhere that are not accelerating, the results will be the same.

General relativity considered accelerating reference frames, aka gravity.

Hilarious. There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame. All that matters is whether the observer is accelerating and whether the event/experiment is accelerating.

Oh, and gravity is not an inertial reference frame ... and gravity does not accelerate. You become more and more absurd by the post. Now would be an excellent time for you to declare that I've never studied in college and for you to write out a random equation that you lift off the internet.

Einstein's field equations are classically deterministic, unlike the quantum wave functions of Bohr and Schrodinger.

Do you know what it is that prevents Bohr's and Schrodinger's models from being "classically deterministic"? This would be an excellent opportunity for you to show that you really know your stuff. If you don't know your stuff, however, you're not going to find it on Wikipedia or Quora or within the first 200,000 hits of a Google search and you'll have to come up with a really lame excuse for not just firing off this one-sentence answer.

The floor is yours.

 

[Into the Night]

You would have already gone to college if you had the interest and inclination.

You actually need to be prepared for college level physics and chemistry, and unfortunately your alegebra and calculus skills are undoubtedly non-existent.

Your best bet is to just keep frantically googling for tidbits of scientific information on the interwebs. That's a terrible way to learn, because you will never see the forest through the trees and put it all together. But you just don't have the skill set for college level science. That's about it, because you don't seem the type that is going to avail yourself of top tier scientific journalism and popular science books, either.

Physics isn't a college or a class.
Neither is chemistry.
You are just describing yourself again, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

This literally could be cited in college as an example of scientific illiteracy.

Science is not a college.

She's got some of the buzzwords memorized from months of frantic googling. She can write gibberish that manages to insert the buzzwords into gibberish sentences.

But she can't put it all together, she can't see the forest through the trees, because she really doesn't understand evolution, the big bang, determinism, special relativity, or why Galileo failed to overturn the prevailing heliocentric system, which didn't happen until at least Kepler.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. Galileo did not falsify the heliocentric system. Neither did Kepler. Einstein did. Galileo falsified the geocentric system.

 

[Into the Night]

I accept your tacit confession you have never been to college, never taken a college level science class and the litany of buzzwords and rudimentary concepts you are aware of just comes from googling around on Wikipedia, blog science, and elsewhere on the interwebs.

I could tell you never had a science class, and this was just confirmation.

Science is not a class or a college.

 

[Into the Night]

Because anyone who took introductory college physics remembers vectors, because you can't do Newtonian mechanics without them.

Guess that means YOU then, since you have denied Newton's law of Motion.

 

[Into the Night]

You didn't answer my question.

I don't think he can.

 

[Into the Night]

You and Perry PhD think vectors are exotic mathmatical abstractions.

Nope. I've said the opposite, in fact.

That is a tell you have never had introductory high school or college physics.

Physics is not mathematics. Redefinition fallacy. Science is not a college nor a high school. Mathematics is not a college nor a high school

Vectors are not exotic.

Correct. Too bad you don't understand them.

It's first semester introductory college physics.

Mathematics is not physics. Redefinition fallacy. False authority fallacies.

Vector is a fancy word for any force or property that has magnitude and direction.

Nope. Not the definition of a vector. Try again.

In two dimensional vectors, which is what is generally going to be used in introductory Newtonian mechanics, calculating a vector magnitude from it's two components just needs the Pythagorean theorem. That's ninth grade math. Nothing exotic about it.

Which you have also denied.

Now the 4d vectors of spacetime intervals are farther out there. But the same basic principles of magnitude and direction apply. With the added component of time.

You have a math error there which I've already pointed out. Divisional error.

 

[Into the Night]

IBDumbass, IntoTheBulverism, and Colloqy aka Perry PhD aren't playing with a full deck.

Mantra 1d.

 

[Cypress]

Nope. I've said the opposite, in fact.

Physics is not mathematics. Redefinition fallacy. Science is not a college nor a high school. Mathematics is not a college nor a high school

Correct. Too bad you don't understand them.

Mathematics is not physics. Redefinition fallacy. False authority fallacies.

Nope. Not the definition of a vector. Try again.

Which you have also denied.

You have a math error there which I've already pointed out. Divisional error.

Bunch of meaningless word salad, which indicates you never even had high school physics, were not aware of the basics of special relativity, were not aware that calculating two dimensional vector magnitude takes nothing more than eighth grade math skills, and really aren't capable of anything more than throwing out some buzzwords you read about somewhere and patching them together in gibberish you hope sounds effective.

 

[Cypress]

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!

Wow. You win the dumbass award of the day.

General relativity is a description of relativity in accelerating reference frames, aka gravity. Einstein's big idea in 1907 is that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable at local scales. The acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP].

General relativity is all about acceleration, dummy!

Special relativity only applied to uniform motion in two or more inertial reference frames. So Einstein knew he was going to have to extend special relativity to the more general case of non-inertial motion.

Any object in angular motion, is in an accelerating frame of reference: satellites, moons, planets.