Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About eon_rider

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    general relativity
  1. Totally agree. I was told you'll always understand it better if you can visualize why the math works this way. (By my math teachers) Perhaps at very high level maths this is not the way. I don't know. I think the desire to understanding something conceptually IS very valid and has merit. http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-5/p10.html The above may be of interest to some on Richard Feynman famous phrase. best, Eon.
  2. Nothing wrong with SR or GR to date. Just because time is a conceptual apparatus in no way negates SR OR GR. Nor does it make time a fantasy or anything in the real world a fantasy. Time is real but is dependant on us. Being dependant on us to congnize it does not make time an illusion. As long as we are present then so is time. And times really important. Time has a 50/50 relationship with us. That does not make it a fantasy. Time and humans rely on each other to function. Time is not an illusion even if it is not a substance. It rides a middle ground that's real enough.
  3. Sweet. Clearly put. Hopefully I'll retain it. Cheers. BTW... "a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants or a little soda water spilled on your clothing?" Is that right? Anyway...that's funny
  4. EDIT: Great point. I'll take it on board. I thought it was possible to assign a "relativistic mass" to a photon that depended on its wavelength. This must be a different thing, and I assume you must be refering to the proper mass of a photon? (not sure....still learning.) But I hear what you're saying. That's cool. Fair enough. It's all good. Respect, Eon. Can anyone clarify this? best again, Eon.
  5. I was going to edit my previous post. I didn't want to bump this post, but for some reason I can't edit my previous post. anyway.. If its helfpul to anyone I found this link. http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/ from The Department of Physics at Syracuse University. It was very clear and helpful to read from start to finish. IMO - one the the best online presentations I've read so far for the non-scientist.
  6. It’s correct? After I read three million sources (exaggeration ) telling me this is not possible. Now two good people say we are all travelling at C. Is this some kind of paradox? A second question: Given that all movement of A wrt to B is relative (and Viceversa), then as a photon of light (A) travels towards us (B) at speed c, could we not just switch to the photon’s reference frame to show that we are travelling towards the photon at speed c? (light speed). To me, this supportes the idea that we are all travelling at the speed of light all the time but this can't be so. Is thi
  7. The Australian National University's relativistic visualization project group have done a great job. The pictures are amazing. It's a great site for visualizing aspects of S.R. I'll continue on, and see if I can find other sites that get into the logic of S.R. I'm also still reading slowely Einstein's original papers, and with each new concept searching for multiple examples or re-statements on the web at university web sites. But it's not always a straight forward learning process. You think you understand something, then you realize you didn't really get it properly, so then you go
  8. I didn't expect such a fast first response. I have been searching the web lots, but the web sites you've pointed out look great and I never found them with google. I'm heading to the URL's now. Thank you. Eon.
  9. Non-expert question: I’m trying to understand time dilation and length contraction better within the context of Einstein’s Special Relativity. I found some good descriptions at about.com and on several science forum threads but it seems I came up just shy of understanding it clearly. I thought I had it understood clearly then somehow my understanding got obfuscated again. I’ve heard some great analogies for both time dilation and length contraction. (One being the tilting “1meter stick/ruler” analogy.) EG. Due to the tilt of the ruler (representing a person travelling at very hi
  10. EDIT: trying to shorten and hopefully clarify my post ParticleOne: Very interesting stuff. Hope this makes some sense. I agree with multiple definitions of time, one being "that which is measured by clocks" which is quoted most often as a standard definition of time. IN S.R. time dilates. (I'm still trying to understand time dilation clearly) but as you say that's another topic. Anyway. I've seen it written in books, also heard it said on this board that time is "just a conceptual apparatus." And that's one of my favourite notions of time. I can't remember the sage that first s
  11. Charge density maps are interesting. Thanks for that link. No they didn't have that technique when I was in university. The images are refined by computer and the unwanted data is culled by a small computer program but yes that’s pretty close to direct observation so it's very cool. I'm convinced, and consensus in the scientific community on the technique appears to be strong. The computer assisted parts of the process don't seem to interfere too much with the original observations. Very Interesting stuff. Thanks. Eon
  12. Thanks for the thoughts. It's all very interesting. I'm no expert but I remember studying the many different electron orbits in university long ago and the subject is still fascinating. Right now I'm reading some papers on "Relational Quantum Mechanics" defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as: "an interpretation of quantum theory which discards the notions of absolute state of a system, absolute value of its physical quantities, or absolute event." best, Eon.
  13. No beef with Q.M. here. It's great best. Eon. But I have a further question. Perhaps Swansont might care to answer or any expert. I might be way off base. Not sure. My understanding is that an orbital (in the sense of this is how an electron travels around a nucleus) is not a physically viewable or verifiable thing. Unless it's computer generated to be viewable or drawn onto a graph. Rather an orbital is a mathematical function that puts electrons into a three dimensional world. But the actual electrons may move (fly? spin? appear?) differently from the numerical mathem
  14. Very nicely said. Things like motion can appear to be absolute from a specific reference frame, but ultimately the above is the bottom line. (IMO)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.