|
|
Post by Moon Man on Apr 7, 2006 12:54:42 GMT -4
The theory of relativity.
I have to split now but I'll check in next time.
Please make your explanation simply.
Thanks folks.
Have a great day!
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 7, 2006 13:35:15 GMT -4
I don’t have time right now but if you will rent the movie Insignificance it will teach you all you need to know. |
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Apr 7, 2006 15:31:45 GMT -4
Special relativity or General Relativity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 7, 2006 19:46:03 GMT -4
It's not really something that can be explained in a post or two. Remember that its background is well-rooted in some pretty heavy maths. That said, I have to hand a smallish book entitled, Relativity/The Special and the General Theory and sub-titled "A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand." I've read it a couple of times. Crown publishers, ISBN 0-157-025302. The author is a genial-looking German professor whose name escapes me at the moment. You don't need heavy duty maths to understand relativity, but if you want to understand how it was developed, you do need them. Amazon has it, of course.Fred |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Apr 7, 2006 20:10:55 GMT -4
It seems to take some really "outside the box" thinking to really get it.
I have often wondered the following...the universe is xx billion years old, give or take. Hubble's Deep field scan looks at galaxies xx-1 billion light years away. Now, in the xx-1 billion years the light has taken to get to our eyes, the galaxies have moved further away. We see them "where they were and as they were" xx-1 billion years ago. It would seem they must have taken many billions of years to get to where they were when we "saw" them.
I just get the impression that the cosmos is much much older than scientists say. How can established galaxies seen in opposite directions that were xx-1 billion light years away from us xx-1 billion years ago have gotten that har apart in xx billion years? And where the hell are they really at now??
My brain hurts just trying to think about it. But relativity falls in there somewhere...
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Apr 7, 2006 21:50:54 GMT -4
I'm tempted to add "Einstein for dummies" but the irony might be too much  |
|
|
|
Post by james on Apr 16, 2006 4:58:35 GMT -4
The theory of relativity. I have to split now but I'll check in next time. Please make your explanation simply. Thanks folks. Have a great day! There's this thing called the "Internet" and in it there are these things called "webpages". One specific webpage that you might find useful is www.google.com. With this webpage you can search for specific webpages that deal with what ever subject you may be looking for. Seriously, why make such a post? Can't you do a little searching for yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 16, 2006 10:21:39 GMT -4
Well personally I think he needs to get to grips with the basics of Newtonian Physics before progressing to Relativity. It's a little like trying to swim the Alantic before you're able to do without the lifeguards preventing you from drownng in a paddling pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Apr 20, 2006 20:27:12 GMT -4
It keeps being referred to in subjects I'm reading. I have no clue what it is. I wonder how many apples fell on Newtons head before he took the clue...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Moon Man on Apr 20, 2006 20:29:38 GMT -4
It's not really something that can be explained in a post or two. Remember that its background is well-rooted in some pretty heavy maths. That said, I have to hand a smallish book entitled, Relativity/The Special and the General Theory and sub-titled "A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand." I've read it a couple of times. Crown publishers, ISBN 0-157-025302. The author is a genial-looking German professor whose name escapes me at the moment. You don't need heavy duty maths to understand relativity, but if you want to understand how it was developed, you do need them. Amazon has it, of course.Fred Thanks. Einstein, eh? I've been reading some Adam Smith lately and that dudes books are a hard read as well. Ha! I have the book on my desk as I write! Opps, the link didn't work. QC 6 E55 1961 1961 Relativity : the special and the general theory : a popular exposition 15th ed. Einstein, Albert, 1879-1955 |
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Apr 20, 2006 23:35:50 GMT -4
Relativity/The Special and the General Theory
sub-titled "A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand."
I wager that Moon Man is going to proof the author
mistaken in his subtitle.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Apr 23, 2006 23:05:55 GMT -4
"God's Equation"
A. Aczel
You need some comprehension of university level math though. This book deals with Einstein's inclusion of the cosmological constant but goes through how he arrived at it via his papers on relativity.
|
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Apr 26, 2006 22:50:05 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 27, 2006 3:26:10 GMT -4
Not much point as moonman appears to have gone again, but as he won't read any link you give him, here's my go:
Two theories, special relativity, which only applies for non-accelerated motion, and general relativity.
Special relativity starts from the observation that the speed of light appears constant for all observers. Some simple maths gives consequences like time dilation, the speed of light being an absolute limit and E=mc^2.
General relativity starts from the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. The maths are much harder and the predictions include light being bent by gravity, the effect of gravity on time and various phenomena associated with black holes and the expansion of the universe.
To date, no experimental test of relativity has shown any problem with it. However, at very small length and time scales general relativity appears inconsistent with quantum theory. Theoretical physicists have proposed various ways of dealing with this, but experimental physics is a long way from being able to test these ideas.
Any one else, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood anything.
|
|
