Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / October 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

ThreadLast Post  Replies
"The Right Angle Lever Paradox"31 Oct 2006 13:31 GMT2
"The Right Angle Lever Paradox"
    The "Right Angle Lever Paradox" is a classic construct which is taught
in most courses in Special Relativity. As with all paradoxes, it reveals
that and error has been made in our thinking. It may be interesting then to
Noam Chomsky31 Oct 2006 11:17 GMT25
I found this quote by Noam Chomsky, that's quite thought provoking:
______________
If you go back to the Bible, there's a category of people who were
called prophets, a translation of an obscure word, they were
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?30 Oct 2006 23:54 GMT3
Relativity - Affine Geometry ?
Abstract:
Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity in a relatively
unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper written in 1918, in the form of a
Objections to SR, specifically for  <spamspamspam3> Ed Green's response.30 Oct 2006 22:58 GMT1
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1162146767.873648.38770@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
Apples30 Oct 2006 20:21 GMT9
Physics has a lot to say about why and how apples fall from trees. It's
quite common to see apples drawn in physics texts - often on the cover.
Much importance seems to be attached to them.
But I haven't managed to find any physics texts that have much to say
SR fundamental contradiction30 Oct 2006 15:50 GMT230
SR fundamental contradiction
------------------------------------------
Luttgens:
Let x = ct.
Hund's Law, Superconductivity and the Exclusion Principle30 Oct 2006 15:29 GMT3
This is a Hypergeometrical Universe take on those problems.  Hund's law
is presented in terms of minimizing four-dimensional volume during the
trajectory of the Fat Electron.
Superconductivity goes one step further and consider the subsequent
yet another paradox (?)29 Oct 2006 13:00 GMT9
Please bear with me again. Consider a spaceship with two people at
front and back ends. The person at the front resets his clock and sends
a light signal to the person at the back, who resets his clock when he
receives the signal. Then, they both move to the center of the ship to
Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas?29 Oct 2006 12:12 GMT85
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?
TrekJunky
/\  The Quantum Pyramid  /\29 Oct 2006 03:31 GMT1
Quantum Pyramid
The Quantum Pyramid is another powerful aspect of our philosophy.  The
understanding of the pyramid combined with our method of reproducing
this effect has led us to the realization that we create our own
Propeller is sharp and to the point28 Oct 2006 23:06 GMT1
He guards the gateway to the road to men's hearts.
Once the tyrranosaur was alive and the tooth-set dead.
Now the tables are turned.  The teeth live the tyrant's remnants from
past to future.  As Propeller.
Faster than Light?27 Oct 2006 20:48 GMT60
Faster than Light?
The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects
cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. However, we know from
experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket
Past, present and future of E=mc2:  A  CRITICAL DISCUSSION27 Oct 2006 18:55 GMT15
Past, present and future of E=mc2:  A  CRITICAL DISCUSSION
The link with detailed discussion
(i) How and When E=mc2 was derived ?
 (ii) What are conditions of derivation ?
Einstein's discoveries a priori synthetic?27 Oct 2006 18:12 GMT7
Have heard it asserted Einstein's discovery's of special and general
relativity were made through purely
rational means, ie mostly through his famous "thought" experiments and
such. Am looking for a concise summary of how true such a viewpoint is,
mass increase due to speed27 Oct 2006 17:34 GMT41
If you were in a spaceship with absolutely nothing in your visual range, and
another identical spaceship moving in a straight line flew passed you, SR
tells us that it would be impossible to know who's moving and who's
stationary.  But wouldn't measuring the mass of both ...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 September, 2006
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.