On 7/30/13 10:23 AM, hanson wrote: > "Sam Wormley", being upfront & center, shows his > <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>: >> > hanson wrote: > Sam, Einstein & his SR/GR is not only wrong, it is > utterly USELESS. He recanted it already 60+ years > ago, (that's before you were born), when > ___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____ > <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR> >>> > Sam FAQed & Putz-Baezed himself & wrote: > How quickly haha forgets that there has never > been an observation that contradicts a prediction > of SR/GR. Not one. > Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis > of Special Relativity? > <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >> > hanson wrote: > Sam, your ref is as USELESS as is SR/GR because > Prof John Baez at UCR declares & urges in his > official, pedagogic website: > <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/lengths.html> > ||Baez:|| "we fiddle around" & "forget that darn '2' " > ||Baez:|| "we fiddle around" & "forget that darn '2' " > ||Baez:|| "we fiddle around" & "forget that darn '2' " > ||Baez:|| "we fiddle around" & "forget that darn '2' >> > ergo Sam, Einstein & his SR/GR is not only wrong, > it is utterly USELESS. Albert recanted it already > 60+ years ago, when > ___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____ > <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR> > > Only Einstein Dingleberries, like you here, Sam, > who worship Albert's sphincter carry on to proselytize > and advertise it, like here, upfront and center, with > their very own <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity> >> > Thanks for the laughs, Sam... ahahahaanson >
Was there something about special relativity that you thing to be incorrect, haha?
There is nothing wrong with special relativity. However, I suspect that your understanding of special relativity is lacking. This is true for many people, including more than half of Freshman physics students.
Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames
Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.
This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that students have with the definition of the time of an event and the role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret the phrase ?relativity of simultaneity? as implying that the simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of the reception of light signals. They difference in signal travel time for different observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to confront the startling ideas of special relativity.