Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Geez, I wish I had time for more courses!

Right now I am writing software that has to map x,y coordinates (in pixels) reported by a sensor that can be installed at any weird angle to GIS coordinates (latitude, longitude). My challenge is to get the system to do this math done fast. With hundreds of thousands of sensors reporting all the time if it isn't fast, the end product (which is supposed to be real time) will back up.

The math is nicely Euclidean. It is a bit of a pain because using a matrix library costs too much in terms of performance!

Quote:

In the old days someone might just had thrown together an analog system to deal with such a problem but now no one think analog.

Hell in the early days of chip logic with RTL chips my company have one Phd engineer design a device using RTL with core ring memory an the engineer owner without a degree went analog design that used a fraction of the power and work far better.

Lava,

You might want to know that your play partner in this is expressing some rather troubling antisemitic views. This might be relevant in a thread attacking Einstein.

justafool44 wrote:

Its a well known fact that forums worldwide are monitored by watchdog shills from the Zionist state of Israel, and they have a large permanent band of workers who attack anyone who tries to show that 911 was an inside job, run by Mossad and CIA.

You and I disagree on science. I don't think either one of us should be playing with this type of hateful crap.

2) In Physics, and definitely in GR, it's all about the math. If two theories make the exact same predictions they are equivalent theories. This is true even if they are based on ideas that seem very different to us. They are functionally the same, and if one is correct they other is equally correct.

4) I am not sure if I understand your question for GR. Asking a question about "why" something is in Physics is seldom useful.

The math gives the answers that it gives. The why? simply "because that's the answer".

I think this article is trying to provide a nice story for non-scientists. Scientists don't need the nice stories... and often they get in the way of understanding.

I am not sure if I want to get pulled in to this again. A lot of your problems are caused by the fact that you haven't taken the time to study mathematics. What we are doing is not going to teach you mathematics.

1. You have this weird view of Science that it is based on what is "reasonable". The word is a horrible word for science because you are basing "truth" on what makes sense to you.

2. Scientific theories are proved correct if they can make accurate, specific testable predictions on how things will work that match with actual experiments. Two theories that lead to the exact same predictions are equivalent because it it the experimental confirmation that matters in science.

3. Your fairy theory isn't very testable ... I suppose we could have Newtonian fairies that pulls things towards each other with a force inversely proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance between them. The fact that you use the word "fairy" doesn't make the theory either more or less scientific.

4. Curved space is a mathematical term used for functions in tensor space. You can not possible understand what it means until you have learned the mathematics. This should upset you because this is a mathematical term for a mathematical concept.

5. For that matter, if you aren't going to learn the mathematics, why are you using mathematical terms anyway?

The concept is explained to lay people as simply as the curved path a ball takes as it arches horizontally from the person throwing it to the one catching it.

Celestial bodies moving in orbits, as well as comets, etc. move in curved paths due to no propulsion besides their inertia keeping them in a path of 'falling' due to their momentum.

You are being silly. You say things that are ridiculous to anyone who has had more than a first year college course in physics. Instead of learning something, you double down.

That is the reason that people don't take you seriously.

Take this as an example. You pieced this together out of well-used science phrases... but you still get the science wrong.

Quote:

The concept is explained to lay people as simply as the curved path a ball takes as it arches horizontally from the person throwing it to the one catching it.

Celestial bodies moving in orbits, as well as comets, etc. move in curved paths due to no propulsion besides their inertia keeping them in a path of 'falling' due to their momentum.

When I read this, I think... what the hell is he saying?

1. The "curved path a ball takes as it arches horizontally" is generally calculated in Euclidean space (just so you know, Euclidean space is flat). Are you say saying that curved paths can't take place in flat spaces?

2. You seem to think there is a difference between "bodies moving in orbits" and "comets". (There isn't).

3. You seem to think that inertia is a form of "propulsion". (It isn't).

4. You seem to think that objects in orbits aren't "falling" (they are).

5. Since all of these things (orbits, thrown balls, etc) can happen in flat Euclidean space, you have said absolutely nothing about curved space.

If you really wanted to learn about these things, we could start to learn about how Newton's Laws work in Euclidean space. If you want to have any real understanding, you have to start by learning the basics.

After that, we learn about Vector spaces, and how to define Euclidean space in terms of tensors. And then (and only then) can we talk about non-Euclidean space.

First you should learn about how a ball actually moves in Euclidean space.

“…to use the Earth itself as the medium for conducting the currents, thus dispensing with wires and all other artificial conductors,” by means of “a machine which, to explain its operation in plain language, resembled a pump in its action, drawing electricity from the Earth and driving it back into the same at an enormous rate, thus creating ripples or disturbances which, spreading through the Earth as through a wire, could be detected at great distances by carefully attuned receiving circuits. In this manner I was able to transmit to a distance, not only feeble effects for the purposes of signaling, but considerable amounts of energy, and later discoveries I made convinced me that I shall ultimately succeed in conveying power without wires, for industrial purposes, with high economy, and to any distance, however great.” (1901, Collier’s Weekly).

I don't get your point with this. I don't even see anything here to disagree about.

Our argument is about expertise. The are a group of people who are experts in Physics. They are experts not because of their title. They are experts because they have spent the time studying... they have done the long problem sets, they have done the reading, attended the lectures, taken the quizzes, done the experiments, written the papers and gotten feedback from peers.

You want to be an expert even though you haven't done the hard work it takes to gain this expertise.

It seems that you are arguing that expertise means nothing, knowledge means nothing and hard work means nothing. Everyone can just come up with their own ideas about what is right and be equally correct just for saying what makes sense to them.

I have never argued that your ideas should censored. You have free speech (as do I and everyone else). But that doesn't make you an expert.

My criticism of your posts is that you say things that are absolute nonsense. You make them sound like they come from a Physics textbook, but anyone who has actually read a Physics textbook knows that you are making basic errors-- like insisting that inertia is a form of "propulsion".

I don't want the casual reader to be fooled into thinking that you have any expertise on the subject.