Would Religion still continue if....

[whitefork]

Has anyone succeeded in explaining anything to the gentleman? If so, please provide a link, for I've missed it. Upchurch, he won't even work through your math. Teaching remedial special relativity is, I fear, not going to be a productive use for your time.

But LucyR, you seem like someone who's not given up all hope.

Have at it! I'll be cheering you on from the sidelines.

(Then you can always yank the football away at the last moment. I love that part)

 

[The Fool]

Has anyone succeeded in explaining anything to the gentleman?

what you have to realise is that Franko has a severe problem with his religious dogma, and he knows it. His "Graviton"has mass.....This causes him a lots of problems, as he cannot abandon or modify the Religious Dogma he must ignore/reject/confuse the observable facts. He must spread as much doubt and confusion, fog and mirrors as possible. He needs to always hang onto the notion that massive objects are (maybe) not limited by the speed limit of C. The observable facts say that particles that are massive cannot travel at light speed. So franko must always use plenty of fog, mirrors, doubt and confusion to provide a suitable debate proof shelter for his flawed "massive Graviton"Dogma.

 

[Solitaire]

(a) Here I used the L' = L / SQRT[1 - (V*V)/(c*c)]
Lr1 = 50 m / SQRT[1 - (0.8)*(0.8)] = 83.3 m
Lr2 = 50 m / SQRT[1 - (0.6)*(0.6)] = 62.5 m
(b) This involves the relativistic addition of velocities.
u = (v + u')/(1 + vu'/(c*c)) = (0.8 + 0.6)c / (1 + (0.8 * 0.6) = 0.945
And the length contraction equation L = L' * SQRT[1 - (V*V)/(c*c)]
Lr1 = 83.3 *0.324 = 27.0 m & Lr2 = 62.5 m * 0.324 = 20.27 m
(c) This one's easy. T = D / (Vr1 + Vr2) = 2.52E+12 / (0.8 + 0.6) = 6000 s or 1 hour 40 minutes
(d) This one's hard. I accidently transposed a digit and didn't get Serway & Faughn answer.
First you have to find the distance between the rockets from their perspectives.
Dr1 = 2.52E+12 m * SQRT[1 - (0.8)*(0.8)] = 1.512 terameters
Now, the times are found by dividing by the equation T = D / V.
Tr1 = 1.512E+12 m / 0.945c = 5328 s or 1 hour 18 minutes.
(e) Just repition of the previous calculations.
Dr2 = 2.52E+12 m * SQRT[1 - (0.6)*(0.6)] = 2.016 terameters
Tr2 = 2.016E+12 m / 0.945c = 7104 s or 1 hour 58 minutes 24 seconds
(f) Casualties only on rocket one. Speed kills.
(g) Just kidding.
Our answers ought agree well enough for government work. All those durn zeros.

 

[Solitaire]

Sadly, the individual who started this highly instructive diversion seems to have lost interest.

Upchurch, you get another thumbs up.

I don't get much opportunity to log on during the day,
and the modem kind of slow during the night.

 

[LucyR]

Lucy,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't see where you offered to derive it.

Edited: okay, I found where you offered. My appologies for missing it. Would you care to give it a go?

Once again, I appologize if I stepped on your toes.

Upchurch,

I hope you didn't take my last post too seriously. Truth is you did make a big effort to get the point across. I contributed very little.

To explain SR I think it's important to emphasize the history of the theory and to describe the experiments that resulted in the paradigm shift. It has to be made clear that the principle of relativity existed long before Einstein. It was Newton who first proposed that the laws of physics should be the same in systems at rest as in those moving at constant velocities. However, the Maxwell equations, which otherwise worked very well, failed to exhibit this property. Lorentz modified the Galilean transformations to remedy this problem, but it was up to Einstein to suggest that the Lorentz transformations applied to all physical laws. This implied that Newton's laws needed to be modified to remain invariant under a Lorentz transformation. This was done by assuming a velocity-dependent mass, with the form m = m_0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), where m_0 is the rest mass.

Numerical examples of SR in action are of course useful, but are only of secondary importance, hence my earlier post. Admittedly, I've not got much further here. I wasn't actually expecting anyone to call my bluff - I was just trying to stimulate conversation. Buggered if I'm seriously going to try to lecture SR to Franko or anyone else, for at least two good reasons: firstly I'm not qualified, and secondly, there are many good textbooks available.

 

[LucyR]

Evildave,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. It sounds really interesting, but to be honest, I got a little lost after the first paragraph.

Give me a rocket launcher and I can kill anything that moves - more complicated than that and I tend to switch off.

Have you seen the Doom 3 screenshots? Any thoughts? This is the one thing that might persuade me to upgrade my computer.

 

[evildave]

Well, I'm eagerly awaiting its release, but I'm more eagerly awaiting Halo's sequel.

I just wonder whether the 'intimate' non-interactive shots and camera angles will reduce immersion in the experience.

 

[whitefork]

I don't get much opportunity to log on during the day,
and the modem kind of slow during the night.

I was referring the the Sage of Baltimore. I didn't mean to cast the blame net your way, John. I gotta stop being so oblique.

 

[Guest]

Sadly, the individual who started this highly instructive diversion seems to have lost interest.

Upchurch, you get another thumbs up.

Who me?

 

[Tricky]

I was referring the the Sage of Baltimore. I didn't mean to cast the blame net your way, John. I gotta stop being so oblique.

Gosh! Almost three whole days without The Sage! The Goddess must have taken a liking to us atheists after all.

You don't suppose he's gone to read up on the theory of Special Relativity, do you?

 

[whitefork]

Who me?

The sagacious one, Pie. It's not always about you. But, as the one whose name is a symbol pointed out in banter, today's your day - 3.14

The old joke - "Pie are not square. Pie are round. Cornbread are square".

Happy days.

 

[Tricky]

The sagacious one, Pie. It's not always about you. But, as the one whose name is a symbol pointed out in banter, today's your day - 3.14

The old joke - "Pie are not square. Pie are round. Cornbread are square".

Does the name "Brother Dave Gardner" mean anything to you, Fork?

 

[whitefork]

No, but a quick Google indicates yet another gap in my knowledge. Sounds like somebody mom woulda liked.

 

[pillory]

if pillory declares himself as A -theist

 

[Tricky]

No, but a quick Google indicates yet another gap in my knowledge. Sounds like somebody mom woulda liked.

I listened to him a lot as a child because my parents liked him. He actually was pretty funny, although being a Southern humorist of the 50s and 60s, was a character of his time, and hence quite racist at times.

But the "cornbread are square" was directly off one of his albums. With your extensive knowledge of recorded humor, I assumed you had borrowed it from him.

 

[whitefork]

But the "cornbread are square" was directly off one of his albums.

That's pretty funny. When I first came home from school babbling about "PI R Square" my mother told that joke and it's been a family touchstone ever since. I figured it wasn't original but never bothered to research where it came from. Now I know. My sister will be delighted.

Thanks, man.

 

[Guest]

The sagacious one, Pie. It's not always about you. But, as the one whose name is a symbol pointed out in banter, today's your day - 3.14

The old joke - "Pie are not square. Pie are round. Cornbread are square".

Happy days.

Sagacious one,pie.

pies are square just like roots

I am not a pie 3.14 I am a pudding

 

[The Fool]

Pie, for the last time. Can you ask your Avatar to put her pants back on.....

 

[Guest]

Pie, for the last time. Can you ask your Avatar to put her pants back on.....

Foolinkins my avatar has got on a full ensemble of underwear.

 

[c4ts]

Foolinkins my avatar has got on a full ensemble of underwear.

She's giving Denise some competetion. Whose avatar is wearing the least amount of underpants?