Pamantul Plat

[iuliu46]

În prealabil postat de AlinB

Serios, serios?? Macar daca era citata o lucrare a individului.

Dar cand citezi pe unul care citeaza pe altul cu zero referinte, atunci sursele tale sunt foarte problematice si discernamantul la fel.



Nu functioneaza ca ai citat tu pe unul care a citat pe altul care nu se stie daca a spus asa ceva.

Adica asa, o barfa mica, "stiintifica".

Serios, serios, chiar si wikipedia te depaseste de nu poti face o trimitere serioasa?

Oricum era un argument si pe intelesul tau, dar ala se pare ca ti-a scapat.

Alin de ce nu intelegi ca m-a interesat problema asta ? A fost un timp in care am fost interesat de geocentrism asa ca mi-am facut temele. Personal nu cred ca exista dovezi pentru geocentrism, dar exista argumente proaste impotriva acestuia.

Uite, un fizician obscur ( mai obscur decat Sean Carroll ala ) pe nume Max Born, a scris o carte in care a incercat sa explice pentru public teoria relativitatii.
Citeste ce scrie in josul paginii 344. Apoi, daca mai ai chef sa discuti despre cat de grozava e ideea ta cu vitezele superluminice, esti liber sa o faci. :)

[AlinB]

În prealabil postat de iuliu46

Alin de ce nu intelegi ca m-a interesat problema asta ? A fost un timp in care am fost interesat de geocentrism asa ca mi-am facut temele. Personal nu cred ca exista dovezi pentru geocentrism, dar exista argumente proaste impotriva acestuia.

Uite, un fizician obscur ( mai obscur decat Sean Carroll ala ) pe nume Max Born, a scris o carte in care a incercat sa explice pentru public teoria relativitatii.
Citeste ce scrie in josul paginii 344. Apoi, daca mai ai chef sa discuti despre cat de grozava e ideea ta cu vitezele superluminice, esti liber sa o faci. :)

Nu e vorba de geocentrism, ai facut o afirmatie, normal era sa ai dovezi pentru ea.

Nu vad nimic in pagina 344 care sa fie legat de subiectul discutiei.

[iuliu46]

În prealabil postat de AlinB

Nu e vorba de geocentrism, ai facut o afirmatie, normal era sa ai dovezi pentru ea.

Nu vad nimic in pagina 344 care sa fie legat de subiectul discutiei.

Deci nu vezi ca acolo scrie ca ne putem intoarce fara nici o problema la modelul lui Ptolemeu. Curios. :)

[iuliu46]

Alin, uite ca iti place tie Wikipedia :

Ce spune principiul relativitatii generalizate ?

"All systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics."

Ce inseamna asta ? Inseamna ca daca ai gasi un singur sistem de referinta ( de exemplu Pamantul fix ) in care sa nu poti descrie orice vrei din diferite motive ( de exemplu pentru ca stelele s-ar invarti prea repede ) inseamna ca Einstein a vorbit prostii. De aia ala pe blog spune ca matematica TREBUIE sa functioneze.

[AlinB]

te rog sa prezinti un citat la obiect, nu un citat oarecare din care tragi tu concluziile care iti plac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_...imit_on_speeds

Upper limit on speeds[edit]
According to special relativity, the energy of an object with rest mass m and speed v is given by γmc2, where γ is the Lorentz factor defined above. When v is zero, γ is equal to one, giving rise to the famous E = mc2 formula for mass–energy equivalence. The γ factor approaches infinity as v approaches c, and it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with positive rest mass, and individual photons cannot travel faster than the speed of light.[33][34] This is experimentally established in many tests of relativistic energy and momentum.[35]
Three pairs of coordinate axes are depicted with the same origin A; in the green frame, the x axis is horizontal and the ct axis is vertical; in the red frame, the x′ axis is slightly skewed upwards, and the ct′ axis slightly skewed rightwards, relative to the green axes; in the blue frame, the x′′ axis is somewhat skewed downwards, and the ct′′ axis somewhat skewed leftwards, relative to the green axes. A point B on the green x axis, to the left of A, has zero ct, positive ct′, and negative ct′′.
Event A precedes B in the red frame, is simultaneous with B in the green frame, and follows B in the blue frame.
More generally, it is normally impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c. One argument for this follows from the counter-intuitive implication of special relativity known as the relativity of simultaneity. If the spatial distance between two events A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by c then there are frames of reference in which A precedes B, others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous. As a result, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame, and causality would be violated.[Note 5][37] In such a frame of reference, an "effect" could be observed before its "cause". Such a violation of causality has never been recorded,[17] and would lead to paradoxes such as the tachyonic antitelephone.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communication and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. Under the special theory of relativity, a particle (that has rest mass) with subluminal velocity needs infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, although special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times (tachyons).
On the other hand, what some physicists refer to as "apparent" or "effective" FTL[1][2][3][4] depends on the hypothesis that unusually distorted regions of spacetime might permit matter to reach distant locations in less time than light could in normal or undistorted spacetime. Although according to current theories matter is still required to travel subluminally with respect to the locally distorted spacetime region, apparent FTL is not excluded by general relativity. Examples of apparent FTL proposals are the Alcubierre drive and the traversable wormhole, although their physical plausibility is uncertain.

Asta este "fizica mainstream'.

[iuliu46]

Teoria speciala a relativitatii se aplica acolo unde miscarea este in linie dreapta si uniforma. Nu in cazul miscarilor circulare.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...elativity.html

"Special relativity includes only the special case (hence the name) where the motion is uniform. The motion it explains is only if you’re traveling in a straight line at a constant speed. As soon as you accelerate or curve — or do anything that changes the nature of the motion in any way — special relativity ceases to apply. That’s where Einstein’s general theory of relativity comes in, because it can explain the general case of any sort of motion."

Iar despre citat, ti-am dat pagina din cartea lui Max Born. Acolo e scris negru pe alb ca pamantul fix e la fel de bun ca oricare alt sistem de referinta. Ce vrei sa-l scol din morti pe Einstein sa-ti spuna el acelasi lucru ? Pai a spus-o si el. :)

[AlinB]

Citat scos din context din "Tteoria Relativitatii pentru Prosti" ce pot sa zic, daca astea sunt limitele..cu astea lucram.

Aspectele din teoria relativitatii speciale care nu se aplica unui sistem inertial nu se refera la conversia energie - masa care limiteaza viteaza maxima pe care o poate atinge un corp sau particula cu masa.

Iar despre citat, ti-am dat pagina din cartea lui Max Born. Acolo e scris negru pe alb ca pamantul fix e la fel de bun ca oricare alt sistem de referinta.

Deci va sa zica atata ai putut sa pricepi?

Care va sa zica, dupa tine, daca eu ma urc intr-o masina si plec la Bucuresti, de fapt tu ai sa ajungi la Bucuresti, desemnandu-ma pe mine ca sistem de referinta.
Mare e gradina Doamne..