/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11418582
sole everything from poincare and lorentz

kikebert jewstein was a thieving jew

I don't like his determinism and muh Espinoza's God.

s o y

>>11418582
literally who?

>>11418586
>>11418590
>>11418641
delusional. He used the work of past and contemporary mathematicians. It's called collaboration. Not even Newton derived everything on his own.

>>11418582
I guess his greatest talent was putting the pieces together, which his contemporaries had not been able to do. That takes some talent and intellect

>>11418590
Fuck off /pol/

Einstein was an extraordinarily deep thinker.

>>11418856

>>11418582
https://archive.org/details/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein-ThePropagandaOfSupremacy/mode/2up

>>11418861
>Everyone who isn’t a Nazi uses Reddit

Cope.

>>11418784
>Not even Newton derived everything on his own.
Because Newton also didn't see any moral dilemma about stealing his colleagues' work
https://www.convexoptimization.com/wikimization/index.php/Isaac_Newton

>>11418908
wtf is this?

>>11419069
It is what they can never shut up
It is what they will never can stop
It is what they will not ever cap
It is what jews are so affraid of
Chauvinism, obscurantism, black hundred

Not a real scientist but a meme man. Started the decline of physicd

Hollywood and mass media tend to give him more credit than he deserves, like he would be some kind of saint or uber-genius. I guess, that's because he was jewish, and in america jews have heavy influence in those medias, and they was putting "one of their own" on such cult pedestal.

Don't get me wrong. He was really gifted and talented, but there was a lot of people who had more day-to-day impact on life of people. Like, Louis Pasteur (in medicine, and food industry), Robert Koch (medicine), Paul Ehrlich (medicine, pharmacology), Niels Bohr (physics), Rene Descartes (mathematics). But in mass media, when are saying "genius", first associations come with A. Einstein.

This thread demonstrates the sad state of false info and indoctrination from reading garbage from internet retards.

>>11419271
Does E=mc^2 belong to Einstein?
or just his name resembles it?
Stigler's law of eponymy tells it's nothing special, but why is it so? You may call in envy, but this hype is as annoying as some obtrusive commercial. This jewish hype makes even those few truly good ones they have look pale, because we already expect them to be less than they seem, and it is also not fair.

>>11419372
Always break down to “Muh Jews” with you guys, doesn’t it?

>>11419383
Newton's third law (also not Newton's)

>>11418586
Einstein's big idea was to get rid of the luminiferous aether altogether so that no absolute reference frame exists from which one can define an interval of space or time. This was a simple and elegant idea which made a coherent picture out of Lorentz and Poincare's transformations. Lorentz and Poincare were still clinging to intuitive notions of simultaneity and absolute space and time. Einstein was bold enough to reject these intuitive notions and propose a completely new and counterintuitive kinematics.

>>11419479
It's not my field, so can you please explain to me how photons flying away to the right with c relativedly to me and photons flying away to the left with c relatively to me fly with c relatively to each other?
also this:
> Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

> It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

>>11419652
It would be more precise to talk about two massive spaceships traveling opposite directions from you at .9999999c. Clocks on the two ships would run slower and measuring sticks would be shorter relative to your clocks and measuring sticks, so one ship would measure the other ship traveling less distance in more time than you would, so the velocity of the one spaceship to the other would remain <c.

>>11419815
>It would be more precise
It would be easier for you to fuck me up with that insane ship, but I asked you relative to what is c of that photon flying to the left: to me or to that photon flying to the right? and why, don't just repeat what you've been taught, explain.

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal".
Took me a while, but I finally see his point.
He would have been a modern Teddy.

>>11418582
overrated af

>>11418582
He was great

>>11420100
You and the photons have two totally different reference frames, and different measurements for time and distance. From the photon's perspective, the other photon wouldn't even be moving away from you. It would appear suspended in time.

>>11418856
>fuck off /pol/

>>11419383
always breaks down to blood libel child sacrifice and perversion with you kikes doesn't it?

>>11418641
fukkin lol good pic also
>mike tyson.jpg
bonus points

>>11418586
>>11418641
>>11419109
>>11420386


wow look at this thread. even though mods deleted apparently a bunch of pol shit, still it's filled with more pol trolls. sad state of affairs

>>11420430
keep projecting fraudulent ugly inbred jew. the whole world is waking up to your treachery. be scared

>>11420430
i think all posts of a user disappear when they get banhammered. Most of the shit you we're seeing was from 1 retard

>>11420438
PRAISE ISRAEL. PRAISE THE JEWS. FUCK THIS FAGGOT LOL

>>11420448
lol i would love to see you try kike. come down to southern california if you are serious. ill beat your ugly jew face in. ill give you a free nose job rabbi

>>11420445
>o-other people dont share your sentiment
>y-you are the o-only one who realizes how scummy jews are
>you are alone incel

>>11420450

>>11420453
y-y-y-you are a faggot
s-s-s-pseudo stutter posting
f-f-f-f-f-f-f--f-f-f-f-f faggot

reminder that /pol/ was a trump board until just a few months ago (still kinda is) and trump denies science, also listen to what he says about jews and israel, so go back to the cognitive dissonance cope-with-having-supported-trump-by-going-edgy-with-"we-love-school-shootings-and-domestic-terrorism" board

>>11420498
if trump denies science it's only to get under the skin of the faggot liberals. trump is srsly fukkin based

>>11420506
>trump is srsly fukkin based
sigh

>>11420519
fukkin lol i stand by my statement. best president ever.

>>11420523
>YEAH FUCK LIBTARDS I STARE AT THE SUN FUCK THOSE SCIENCE NERDS
kek so funny i vote for trump because he is dumb and trolls libtards by liking soiience!!!!! me patriotic murkan!

>>11420529
you're doing exactly what he wants you to do. he is controlling you and you have no awareness of it.
BEST
PRESIDENT
EVER

>>11420533
LOL yeah MAGA! fucking libtards don't understand how cool having an ironic president is. like "reee i want to save the planet" pussies. GUESS WHAT, CANT STUMP THE TRUMP, IF YOU WANT RENEWABLE ENERGY YOU GET T-O-T-A-L-L-Y TROLLED TO OBLIVION FUCKING LIBTARDS KEK

>>11420540
now you're just trying too hard

>>11420540
Every now any then you'll get a glimpse of what people really think of you and the low esteem they hold you in, but that was something else altogether man.

>>11420590
great argument anon, thanks for the useful science and math content

>>11420597

>>11420602
oh shit he just posted an epic argument, i'm done for

>>11420604

>>11420609

>>11420615
LOL I WANNA BE AT THAT PARTY FUCK YA

>>11420498
90% of modern science is complete bullshit. One is justified in being skeptical of any claim made by modern scientists. Anyone who isn't brain damaged from onions toxicity knows this.

>>11420653
ohhh okay, science is wrong because your on1ions meme. so based and redpilled, maga awoo!!!!!!! higgs boson fake, gravitational waves fake, black holes fake, evolution FAKE NEWS, vaccines FAKE NEWS, dna FAKE NEWS, round earth FAKE NEWS, PRAISE JESUS MAGA AWOO

NASA IS CGI! THATS WHY WE NEED SPACE FORCE! GOTTA GET TRUMPS MILITARY IN SPACE TO DEBUNK NASA CGI AND ROUND EARTH!!!! MAGA AWOOOOO

>>11418582
Smart man who made brilliant contributions to physics, but whos legacy has been convoluted by (((certain))) special interests to advance their agendas. There are many other brilliant scientists who have made equal or greater contributions that are ignored because Einstein has basically been turned into a puppet mouthpiece.

>>11420664
>There are many other brilliant scientists who have made equal or greater contributions that are ignored
name one. besides Newton

>>11420653
>90% of modern science is complete bullshit

Share your empirical evidence.

>>11420675
>>11420697
apparently the /pol/shits can't back up their garbage, surprising

>>11420498
>>11420519
>>11420529
>>11420540
>whining about Trump on a science board
I bet you pay taxes to the US government, cuck

>>11420675
>Newton
What is so great about newton, anyway? I don't get why people talk about him all the time
>dude discovered gravity, apples and shit man
yeah, next i discover my arm and get a nobel prize?
he made some very easy equations that turned out to be wrong, what else has he done?

>>11420369
So that photon(or some fantastic massive-near-c-spaceship) uses light to indicate the speed of that other photon, and thus that photon stands still according to that spaceship? What if that spaceship used sound to detect that other photon-or-spaceship? Would it just disappear for him?

>>11420369
and if both "spaceships" are "Inertial frames of reference" does it mean that we can launch another spaceship from that spaceship moving with c from us, so that the smaller ship will move with c from that first ship?
I know your formula tells that the smaller spaceship will move with c relatively to us, but it will still reach the destination point two times faster than the bigger spaceship.

Please don't take me for a troll, I really want the answers.

>>/sci/thread/11418582

>>11421821
>know your formula tells that the smaller spaceship will move with c relatively to us, but it will still reach the destination point two times faster than the bigger spaceship.
It won't. Both ships will reach the destination at the same time, because from our frame, the smaller ship won't be moving any faster than the larger ship. From the ships' "reference frames," they reach their destinations in 0 time, covering 0 distance. But speed of light reference frames are somewhat nonsensical, so they aren't usually discussed.

>>11421856
> From the ships' "reference frames," they reach their destinations in 0 time, covering 0 distance.
Do clock stand at that ship, moving away from us with c? Then how is it an inertial frame of reference?:
> An inertial frame of reference in classical physics and special relativity possesses the property that in this frame of reference a body with zero net force acting upon it does not accelerate; that is, such a body is at rest or moving at a constant velocity.[1] An inertial frame of reference can be defined in analytical terms as a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner.

>>11418582
Exceptional thinker. Great marketing. He deserves his place in the modern consciousness.

>>11421872
Light follows geodesics (in special relativity, this is straight line, constant velocity motion) so in that sense it's inertial. But there's not much sense in assigning a reference frame to light when time and distance are both collapsed to zero in its "frame."

>>11420697
I read Charles Murray's book and he was wrong. Gender isn't a construct, race isn't a construct.

>>11421884
> time and distance are both collapsed to zero in its "frame."
From our point of view or from the point of view of the pilots of that ship?

>>11421897
The pilots

>>11421904
What does "relativity" mean then? I thought you wouldn't be able to tell if the ship is moving from the earth or the Earth is moving away from the ship.

>>11421318
His three laws of motion were published in 1687 and are still used by mathematicians every single day in 2020. 333 years of being correct and useful while other Brilliant Geniuses have their work disproven or their theories made obsolete.

>>11421908
Velocity can only be consistently defined and understood in sub-lightspeed frames, so those are the valid frames in which physics is done.
All sub-lightspeed frames will perceive each other as mutually sub-lightspeed, and all sub-lightspeed frames will agree than lightspeed objects are lightspeed. So sub-lightspeed and lightspeed can be separated into distinct categories.

>>11421916
Let me rephrase it:
does it mean that we can launch another spaceship from that spaceship moving with 0.9*c from us, so that the smaller ship will move with 0.9*c from that first ship?

>>11421912
Did he discover any of those lows by himself, or did he only combine previously known laws under his own name? (or was it his mason devotees who united laws not invented by Newton under Newton's name?)

>>11421937
Yes, this is a much more physically reasonable scenario. In this case, the small ship's velocity relative to us will NOT be (0.9+0.9)c, as classical physics would tell us. Instead, you use the relativistic velocity addition formula (which can be derived rather simply from the Lorentz transformations) to find that its velocity is somewhere strictly between 0.9c and c.

>>11421940
Yeah and he was working on those laws for over two decades before he published his findings.

>>11421947
>Instead, you use the relativistic velocity formula
Will distances around that first ship be different from the way we can measure them from Earth?

>>11421956
Yes, lengths measured along the direction of motion in one frame will appear contracted in the other frame. It might seem impossible that this is mutual, but it's possible because of how lengths are measured: when you measure a length, you record the locations of the two ends simultaneously. However, events that are simultaneous in one frame are not in general simultaneous in another. So if you were to watch someone measuring a length in a different frame, they would appear to measure each location at different times, which doesn't correspond to a length measurement in your frame.

>>11421912
so i'm right then, he did nothing but observe extremely basic, obvious things? i really dont get how anyone can find that impressive.
that's like praising the first guy who found a rock.

The Luminiferous aether is real, and a handful of billionaires pay former highschool athletes in monkey suits to derail meaningful discussion of physics by inserting posts about Donald Trump of all things, as if that wasn't a dead giveaway. I seriously fucking hate brainlets. Ted was wrong, technology is glorious, it's greedy kikes that gotta go.

>>11421987
They only seem basic and obvious because they've been drilled into you since middle school. The understanding of friction was very different in Newton's time, a lot of people still thought that bodies just naturally wanted to come to rest. The idea that constant-velocity motion is just as natural as rest motion (Galilean invariance) was widely contested.

>>11421967
Light travels from sun to earth in 8m20s
Thus a ship travelling at 0.9c travels to sun in 9m15s
and if that ship at half a distance launches a shuttle, travelling at 0.9c relatively to that ship already moving at 0.9c, that shuttle will reach the sun in...
Why I ask is that we don't have to measure no distance, we already know them.

>>11422037
The law of inertia apparently occurred to several different natural philosophers and scientists independently, including Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651).[f] The 17th-century philosopher and mathematician René Descartes also formulated the law, although he did not perform any experiments to confirm it.

>>11422047
The first half of the journey takes about 4m37.5s from Earth perspective. From the halfway point, another 4m11.4s pass until the second, faster ship hits the sun, in Earth time. The faster ship moves at an Earth-measured speed of about 0.994c.

>>11422065
"A few people thought of it" is very different from "it was obvious to everyone." Like I said, it had been proposed, but it was controversial.

>>11422086
>Earth-measured speed
Why would I worry about Earth-measured speed when I want to know the actual event and not how it's seen somewhere, where observation is bound to the speed of light? As I previously asked, what would it be if we observed it not by the sight but by sound?

>>11422093
It was a reference to Newton not being the first who discovered those laws.

>>11422138
He was the first to compile and formalize them into a consistent, usable mathematical framework. That deserves a great deal of credit.

>>11422133
"The speed of light" isn't actually about light. Light just happened to be the first thing we knew of that moves at this fundamental speed limit, so 'c' still has the unfortunate name of "speed of light." The answer I gave you does not depend particularly on light-based observation.

Newton is credited with independently inventing calculus and the shills here want to insist he is inferior to a patent clerk who proposed that something can act upon nothing.

>>11422158
Why do you keep on repeating those mantras instead of answering my questions?

>>11422161
The first half of the journey takes about 4m37.5s from Earth perspective. From the halfway point, another 4m11.4s pass until the second, faster ship hits the sun, in Earth time. The faster ship moves at an Earth-measured speed of about 0.994c.
There's your answer

>>11422172
Didn't you forget that the sun itself moves towards that second ship at the speed of 0.9c?

>>11422161
If you want to understand the motivation and derivation of special relativity, go read a textbook. I'm not about to type out a course in 4chan comments.

>>11422176
No, 0.994c. The distance is also shorter from the ship's frame due to length contraction.

>>11422160
>the shills here want to insist he is inferior to a patent clerk
my claim is that they're both bloated out of proportions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_Stigler%27s_law

>>11422180
Distance being shorter doesn't explain why it takes so much time for the second ship to pass that half of the distance.

>>11422186
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_Stigler%27s_law
> Einstein isn't mentioned
what a fucking irony!

>>11418582
He might have been wrong about the block universe.

>>11422133
>observed it not by the sight but by sound?
How could you observe it by sound when there is no medium for sound to travel through in space?

>>11422047
>that shuttle will reach the sun in...
It depends on the reference from of the observer.
The answer will be different depending on if the observer is on earth, on the first ship, or on the second ship.

>>11421318
The universal law of gravitation was the first completely modern physical law. It had never occured to anyone that the motion of the planets around the sun and motion of falling objects on earth are due to the same fundamental force obeying the same inverse square law. This fact is by no means obvious, and probably represents the greatest single leap of human imagination in the history of mankind.

>>11422292
what are those numbers? with formulas, please

>>11422292
>reference from
*reference frame

>>11422277
it would be some hypothetic dark sound

>>11422293
>It had never occured to anyone
except Hooke

>>11422294
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

>>11422297
Hooke had the idea that that the motion of planets is deflected by the sun, but he didn't understand the universality of gravitation or the inverse square relation.

>>11422318
What is this then?
Robert Hooke accused Newton of plagiarism by claiming that he had taken from him the "notion" of "the rule of the decrease of Gravity, being reciprocally as the squares of the distances from the Center". At the same time (according to Edmond Halley's contemporary report) Hooke agreed that "the Demonstration of the Curves generated thereby" was wholly Newton's.[10]
In this way, the question arose as to what, if anything, Newton owed to Hooke. This is a subject extensively discussed since that time and on which some points, outlined below, continue to excite controversy.

>>11422302
Thank you, but don't you understand I question your math models? I also don't really understand them, that's why it may seem I am trolling you, but maybe I actually want to understand.
Two ships approach us at 0.9c from the opposite directions. Both ships are at a light year distance. How soon will those ships meet?
And why it's the same moment they reach the half of the distance between them?

>>11419241
All four of his 1905 papers were incredibly influential. You are delusional.

>>11420453
Well yeah, they HAVE to ban you because their only other recourse is to address what you said.

>>11422529

>>11422500
>Both ships are at a light year distance.
From us, or from each other?
Either way, from our frame of reference the ships would meet exactly when you'd expect - no relativistic calculations are necessary.
It is only when we consider the reference frames of either of the ships that we need to factor in relativistic corrections.
For example, the time measured aboard each ship will be moving slower than in our reference frame and they will measure the journey as taking less time.

>>11422529

kike stole his work from lorentz. lul jokes aside, relativity is pretty neat and although he built on what others started, einstein did good work. the only thing that I despise wholeheartedly about him is his help in creating the atomic bomb, that was subversive and merchant-like-behaviour

>>11422546
>From us, or from each other?
From each other. They somehow meet the object that was 2 light years from them in about 1 year, what should they consider to be that ship's speed from their point of view?

>>11420448
Israel and the Jews were abandoned by God. This was shown when he cracked their temple.

>>11422556
lorentz developed some ideas of special relativity, sure, but he was totally 100% pro stationary euclidean ether. so einstein made the conceptual step there. also, remember there is also this other thing called "general relativity" which is theoretically much more substantial. also einstein explained the photoelectric effect, proved the existence of atoms in brownian motion, made significant contributions to the understanding of quantum theory, also critical opalescence.... come on bro

>>11422950
oh yeah in addition to the conceptual move away from euclidean aether, einstein was the first to deduce the correct mass-energy equivalence law from solid principles, the most famous equation of all time E=mc^2

>>11422950
>>11422954
>euclidean aether
not only do you sound retarded by saying euclidian aether, but the ether was rejected by michelson and morley, while einstein can claim 'he had no idea of it at the time,' its not up to debate that he was not the one to disprove the ether idea.

>the most famous equation of all time E=mc^2
its simply a corollary of the lorentz transformation of E and P (an invariance under the transformation is the equation E=mc^2+pc)

>>11419815
>Clocks on the two ships would run slower
>>11422180
>The distance is also shorter from the ship's frame due to length contraction.
Doesn't it all say, that from the point of view of the pilot of a ship moving at the speed near c his speed would be higher than c?

>>11422969
>the ether was rejected by michelson and morley
wrong. michelson and morley were experimentalists and didn’t state any conclusion like that in their paper and in fact waffles on the interpretation for years even after einstein. Lorentz actually argued that the euclidean static aether with length contractions explained the michelson morley result. (he said arms of their interferometer shrunk because of their motion relative to the aethet)

> its simply a corollary of the lorentz transformation
no, lorentz never said that and he never expounded the idea of how matters and energy are interchangeable. you are way out on a fucking limb if you claim anybody before einstein drew the conclusion.

learn some real history of science anon, your psued website versions of popsci are cringe. i can post an article with some actual history if you want a reference

>>11422950
>but he was totally 100% pro stationary euclidean ether. so einstein made the conceptual step there.
>>11422954
>the conceptual move away from euclidean aether

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

>>11423004
sure, laughlin has a point. general relativity does postulate a “fabric of space time” that isn’t seen in special relativity. the difference with the static stationary aether of lorentz is that lorentz said the aether is an absolute frame of reference. that is not true in general relativity even assuming that a space time manifold exists and has features like being the medium of gravitational waves, and the difference is that general covariance exists in GR. i know this overloads your circuits but it is a deep difference

>>11422998
>no, lorentz never said that
I never claimed he said anything, im simply stating the fact that E=mc^2+pc is not as groundbreaking as you claim (except for popsci cringe which you bash but you are pretty much the epitome of it). Instead, it naturally follows from the lorentz transformation which was better developed by poincare.

>wrong. michelson and morley were experimentalists and didn’t state any conclusion like that in their paper
they laid the groundwork for a theory to be based on these discoveries. yet einstein somehow claims he 'was not aware of them' despite the fact that it was the biggest buzz of the time. yes, while lorentz was wrong about the nature of length contraction, his math nonetheless prevailed

>>11423018
>not seeing the forest for the trees
of course E=mc^2 is a stupid popsci meme, and of course lorentz transformation equations are lorentz's. but the bigger contribution of einstein what his physical insight. understanding the theory of special relativity to come up with energy-mass equivalence is a big conceptual breakthrough, but certainly not einstein's greatest one. i'd put that on par with his postulating that photons exist, which is still not as conceptually huge as the ideas of general relativity and cosmology. so sure. and the fact that even though lorentz had some right equations but was hung up on 19th century concepts of an absolute reference frame means that lorentz was missing the big conceptual breakthrough because he wasn't thinking in a way that led to breakthroughs across the board, whereas that is what einstein did. take a step back and think before drinking the /pol/ kool-aid cribbed straight out of 1935 germany "Aryan physics"

>>11423027
>conceptually huge as the ideas of general relativity and cosmology
Do you understand them or believe in them?
If former is true, could you please answer to this two questions:
>>11422609
>>11422995
?

>>11423027
>physical insight
dropped. he simply summarized previous results, not impressive. as for the photon discovery, sure, he yet again applied what planck discovered earlier. somehow theres a pattern here, he just takes what others have done and pawns it off as his original theory

>take a step back and think before drinking the /pol/ kool-aid cribbed straight out of 1935 germany "Aryan physics"
okay shlomo, thanks for your regurgitation of the jewish history books.

>>11422293
lol, it just seems completely fucking retarded. honestly i don't see how anyone but brainlets can find this mindblowing. the claim that this is something i just have learned is also pretty absurd. I don't remember learning anything about it at school.

actually when i think about it, people seem to have trouble understanding how gravity works (in space), how satellites stay in orbit and such. really weird. it has always been completely intuitive to me. maybe this phenomenon is part of the reason flat earthers exist.

>>11423040
i took a course in GR in grad school and a SR course in SR so yeah, i can probably answer those questions, but they're not clear. could you restate them?

>somehow theres a pattern here, he just takes what others have done and pawns it off as his original theory
goddamnit, you're still being an obtuse idiot. first of all i showed you he was the first to derive E=mc^2 correctly so you are simply wrong. second off sometimes you have right equations sitting in front of you but you can't build a sensible theory out of it. einstein built the sensible theory out of some facts in front of him. that is the complete essence of theoretical physics and he did it better and more than the contemporaries you seem to think did something first, but really they put some pieces there but were clearly not smart enough to put them together (or they made a sad attempt but were wrong because their theories were primitive). putting the pieces together in the correct way is the hard work of theoretical physics.

>the jewish history books.
oh okay, now you take off your cloak revealing your /pol/tardation. what, now history is jewish too? should i show you some excerpts that verify everything i've said written by Tian Yu Cao (or are chinese jewish now too?)

>>11423054
oops my first line there was for the quoted anon but the rest of the lines were for /pol/shit anon:
>>11423041

>>11423054
>could you restate them?
two spaceships at the distance of 2 lightyears from each other begin to move towards each other, both move at 0.9c (relatively to the observer situated in the point of their meeting) meet in less than 2 years, and more than that:
time moves slower to the pilots, thus the events happen even faster, thus from their points of view those ships were moving even faster than that. how so?

>>11423071
basically the answer is length contraction. if an observer exists that sees the two of them separated by 2ly moving at .9 c relative to him, moving toward one another, then the two space ships see each other much less than 2ly from one another, but going somewhat more than .9c but less than c coming toward one another. so they cross that smaller distance at less than c and it all works out in their frame

>>11423054
here's a nice excerpt from Cao's book "Conceptual Developments of 20th Century Field Theories" showing how amazingly wrong Lorentz was about physics

>>11423042
You have one of the worst cases of Dunning-Kruger I've encountered in a while. Congratulations.

/pol/shits BTFO again. two times in the same thread they go silent, implicitly conceding defeat

>>11423494

>>11423499
i really really really like this image.

>>11423081
Can this schizophrenia be supported by an experiment?
What if the ships measure the dstance before they start moving, and then begin flying towards eachother with 0.9c each? thus they pass 2 light years in something less than 2 years?
And isn't that length contraction neutralized by time slowing for the pilot-observer?

>>11423494
At least the first time the went silent because of ban (the link to warosu is in the thread to see it)
/pol/acks know that some specific group have corrupted both political, financial and cultural systems. Isn't it natural to suspect that the very have corrupted science as well? I know they corrupted linguistics to the level of it not being science at all, and I'm very suspicious of some other fields.

>>11423494
>
implicitly......? That's not that correct use of that word.

>>11423614
>Can this schizophrenia be supported by an experiment?
Yes, it is supported by the fact that light always moves at c in all frames of reference.
Even frames of reference that are in relative motion to one another will measure lightspeed as c.

>>11423645
I was asking of length contraction.
Please answer the rest.

>>11418582
You guys are fucking stupid. You're telling me that this man predicted someone's time on top of a skyscraper runs faster than that of a person on the ground 30 years before they had clocks precise enough to prove it, and he's a media creation and not a genius?

>>11420653
IKR....OMG...like Facebook......

If only they had some kind of method....to objectively analyze things. Some set of rules that all so called "scientists" try to abide by. They could give it a catchy name.

>>11420664
Faraday made many discoveries, without any advanced education.

>>11423651
I don't think there's any way to experimentally verify length contraction in particular, but all other aspects of SR have been extensively tested and verified. Simply search "experimental basis for special relativity".
Consider that the founding postulates of SR are completely grounded in reality:
1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
2. Invariance of c with respect to motion of the observer.
That's it. There are no other assertions by Einstein.
All of Special Relativity logically follows from these two fundamental premises.

>>11423681
Is my question so difficult you avoid answering it directly?
Why didn't you ask yourself that question yourself?

>>11423651
yes, there is experimental proof of length contraction. in particle collider that accelerate protons to near c like the LHC, the extreme length contraction makes the protons (normally sphere shaped) to behave as if they are pancake-shaped during the collisions

>>11423702
I did answer it:
>I don't think there's any way to experimentally verify length contraction
The problem we don't have the means to create an experiment of sufficient precision that *could* test length contraction.

>>11423710
wrong. particle accelerators. see the post above yours

>>11423710
the question was
> What if the ships measure the dstance before they start moving, and then begin flying towards eachother with 0.9c each? thus they pass 2 light years in something less than 2 years?
please, explain.

>>11423710
>And isn't that length contraction neutralized by time slowing for the pilot-observer?

>>11423713
already explained;
>>11423081

>>11423711
That is an indirect test. Sure, there are those.
But there is no way to directly test length contraction, which is what I believe the contrarian wants to see.

>>11423714
only in the rest frame of that pilot observer. not other frames

>>11423718
well then you need to just trust “indirect” tests then because accelerating human scale objects to near light speed is not possible with current technology. all we can do that with are very small things like protons and heavy ions

>>11423715
no it's not, because now I ask of them measuring the distance BEFORE they start moving

>>11423725
>accelerating human scale objects to near light speed is not possible with current technology
No shit, that was my point.

>>11423727
the distance they see would change between before and after they start moving. that is what length contraction means

>>11423736
It will be. Breaking light speed will be done, too.

>>11423746
>Breaking light speed will be done, too.
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>11423747
>We know everything already lol

Mankind will go faster than light eventually. Get over it.

>>11423739
would it look for them as if they past that distance with the speed faster than light?
What if they don't look at the distance after they measured it and began moving towards one another?

>>11423719
what other frames have to do with it, if his frame of reference is not worse than any other?
If rest frame is frame of him resting, then what time slowing and time contraction?

while the opponent is thinking in his sleep, I will ask another question:
>>11421884
>time and distance are both collapsed to zero in its "frame."
>>11421904
>from the point of view of the pilots
Doesn't it tell, that from the p.o.v of the pilots, they can move as fast as they want to? (from their point of view: the world around them will rot(ate) faster, but there's somehow no way to tell which frame of reference is more based, duh)

>>11423270
I don't. You may have a case of projection yourself, though.
You could try explaining yourself. My guess is that you won't be able to.

>>11423763
>My naive human fantasies will eventually play out regardless of how the world actually works
Grow up

>>11423765
The distance measurement they made before accelerating would no longer be valid once they're moving.
If they took the prior distance measurement, and divided by the time they spend travelling, they might get an answer greater than c. That wouldn't be a correct calculation though, because the distance to their target has contracted while accelerating, to the point where dividing the distance by the time is really less than c.

>>11424578
>the distance to their target has contracted while accelerating
It actually sounds like dnst3 at work, but if we can travel enormous distances faster than light simply by contracting the distance, I'd say "good enough!"

>>11424567
>I know everything about the world

Grow up.

>>11424567
>>11424615
Please don't.

Spacetime isn't the thing-in-itself.

>>11424640

>>11424578
Now it makes me wonder even more:
If from the pilot's point of view he can move as fast as he wants to (speed increasing, time decreasing, what is the practical difference? none.) and the observer from the earth cannot see him moving faster (because the light from that ship only travels this fast)
Then what is...
What is this all about?
Am I way too wrong when I think it's just another mindfuck they implant into our heads so we don't try to understand, but take it on faith (so we learn to believe, to obey, not to think too highly of ourselves)
?

>>11424637
based

>>11424589
Yeah, if your goal is simply to travel thousands of light years in a few years of ship time, then it's absolutely possible (even though the energies required are monstrous). However, thousands of years of Earth time will pass, so a return trip would find Earth thousands of years in the future. If you don't care about that, then no problem.

>>11424799
>If from the pilot's point of view he can move as fast as he wants to (speed increasing, time decreasing, what is the practical difference? none.)
See
>>11425015

>Am I way too wrong when I think it's just another mindfuck they implant into our heads so we don't try to understand, but take it on faith (so we learn to believe, to obey, not to think too highly of ourselves)
You're wrong in that there's nothing stopping you from learning the material properly, instead of trying to piece it together conceptually from popsci and 4chan posts. You have no good reason to take it on faith.

>>11425041
This thread alone explained theory of relativity better than the school ever could or wanted. Thank you my dear friends, you're the best.

>>11423042
Way to tongue your own asshole without actually contributing to the discussion, faggot.

>>11425294
Nobody cares about your butthurt, brainlet.

>>11422345
You grasping for straws. As for the text you copied: A load of nothing.

>>11422196
Please explain this.
If the distance is shorter for the ship, moving an near-c speeds, will outside observer see that distance travelled by the ship faster than c?

>>11423042
Stop being an emotional woman about being wrong. Grow up cuck.

>>11418582
> distance gets shorter for the fast racer, t
As any jewish prophet, he probably had high ammount of dnst3, all the rest of us are merely in folie a deux billions

>>11426932
No. The outside observer will see the ship moving at less than c, but they'll see the ship time running slower.
Both the ship pilot and the outside observer agree on the total amount of ship-time that passes during the journey. But the ship pilots say that the elapsed ship time was short because the distance to travel was shorter, while the outside observer says that the elapsed ship time was short because the ship clocks were running slow.
Time dilation and length contraction are two perspectives of the same phenomenon.

>>11426963
>they'll see the ship time running slower
Or the outside events running faster?
>Both the ship pilot and the outside observer agree on the total amount of ship-time that passes during the journey.
What about that experiment with watches, when clock on the ship show different time?
> Time dilation and length contraction
Time dilates on the ship, but length contracts outside of it? If this is true, then, as I was told itt:
> if your goal is simply to travel thousands of light years in a few years of ship time, then it's absolutely possible

>>11426933
Wrong about what? lmao.

>>11424637
SRSLY FUKKIN BASED I LOVE ANON

>>11427596
stop avatarwhoring

>>11427606
but i liek these gifs /b/ro. i know it looks liek attention whoring but i srsly liek teh gifs

>>11427010
>Or the outside events running faster?
I mean whether you say clock A runs slower or clock B runs faster doesn't really matter. What matters is the difference in rates of clock A and B, as recorded by the outside observer.
>What about that experiment with watches, when clock on the ship show different time?
I can't figure out what this means, can you rephrase?
>Time dilates on the ship, but length contracts outside of it?
The ship time dilates from the outside perspective, and the outside distance contracts from the ship perspective. The net result of either these is the ship going from A to B in the same amount of ship time.
These effects of time dilation and length contraction are really symmetric between the reference frames. The ship would see the outside observer's clock slow down, and the outside observer would see the length of the ship contract.
You might think that, if the effects are symmetric, then the distance of the journey should also contract for the outside perspective. But this isn't true because the outside observer is at rest with respect to points A and B of the journey, so they are able to directly measure the so-called "proper length" between A and B

FUCK YOU FAGGOTJEFF

>>11427733

While science is usually male-dominated, plenty of women have made just as many contributions to science and chemistry as men, many of them more remarkable.

>>11427889

>>11418855
connections, social networking.
i mean how else do you learn tensors if you don't get them on your own. learning from top mathematicians is better than watching youtube videos. thats how he learned.

>observing einstein
here is what is happening itt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

>>11427710
>The ship time dilates from the outside perspective, and the outside distance contracts from the ship perspective.
> The ship would see the outside observer's clock slow down, and the outside observer would see the length of the ship contract.
Didn't you just contradict yourself, honey?