Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (256820)	6/26/2010 8:06:23 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

yes, I just realized what he was trying to say as I was reading some today. this was the basis for Fizeu's experimental verification described by Einstein in his book -- as you mentioned 3, not 2 velocities are involved -- but even so: This sort of difference is not asymmetrical, i.e. observer A in his reference frame observes one value for the velocity of C -- B in another inertial frame measures another value for the velocity of C in his frame But turn it around and put moving C in B's frame and it will work the same way for A -- I misunderstood what he was trying to say, but he didn't articulate it very well -- what piqued my interest was the "supposed philosophical" implication mentioned, i.e. truth is relative. That philosophical interpretation (notwithstanding whether such a philosophical interpretation of physical theory is appropriate or not) flies in the face of what the special theory of rel says: There is NO preferred reference frame in which the physics are more simple or "different." The principle of relativity as improved by Einstein makes the universe a "more consistent" not "less consistent" or "more ambiguous" place. My colleague tries to teach beginning astronomy students the special theory -- I really believe all he accomplishes is getting them to evaluate the Lorentz transformations for some plug values. I think if he asked them questions as "to what reference frames" the differing lengths and times apply he might be disappointed and also if he framed the questions to force the students to consider the reciprocity of the effects measured he would be disappointed. To be as fair as I can be -- yes, Christians also abuse science, too. If I had a dollar for every time I heard the 2nd law of thermodynamics proposed to "disprove" evolution. This is also a gross misunderstanding (misapplication) coming from a superficial understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I don't want to see religion purporting to be science and I don't want to see science elevated to religion. I'll quit.