Sure, sure. I just prickle at the suggestions often repeated that “Einstein proved Newton wrong” and variations of that. Usually said by people who either don’t understand physics or can’t explain it well if they do understand.
Ultimately, it's almost unheard of for any well tested hypothesis to be "proven wrong"; Even such parochial claims as "what goes up, must come down", or "if you don't apply a force to a moving object, it will slow down and stop" are not so much proven false, as they are proven to be locally true due to local conditions.
Energy isn't a unit of measure.
And after thirty years you think energy is a unit of measure?
I understand what you’re saying here but I still think the word “wrong” does a disservice to what’s going on in the physics. But that’s just because I’ve spent a lot of time actually studying and thinking about physics.Ultimately, it's almost unheard of for any well tested hypothesis to be "proven wrong"; Even such parochial claims as "what goes up, must come down", or "if you don't apply a force to a moving object, it will slow down and stop" are not so much proven false, as they are proven to be locally true due to local conditions.
Physics replaces these local truths with more universally applicable truths, but the new explanations always include the old observations; What goes up at less than escape velocity must come down; If you don't apply a force to counter any environmental frictional forces to a moving object, it will slow down and stop relative to the environment from which the frictional forces are coming.
Einstein's new description of how gravity works showed Newton to be wrong, but only in ways that were undetectable by the techniques available to Newton, and only measurably so in circumstances that are rarely observed or encountered by humans, such as the precise orbit of Mercury around the (both nearby and massive) Sun.
Oh, and occasionally small rocks have started falling upwards, but only since 1914, so lots of people haven't noticed yet.
That's incorrect. Time dilation tells us that if person is in a frame of reference moving close to the speed of light and another person is in a frame of reference moving relatively slowly, then time will pass measurably more slowly for the person in the frame of reference moving near the speed of light. That's not speculation.
As I said don't embarrass yourself.
www.scienceofgadgets.com
What have you really done? I don't see how anybody who thinks energy is a unit and who can barely read or write can be an engineer.As I said don't embarrass yourself.
It does not have to be relativistic speeds. And as I said time dilation is not speculation, it is experimentally demonstrated. Read the first link. What tme dilation infers as to the nature of relity is speculation, which is what I said.
Also demonstrating tie dilation with macro scale size clocks is currently theoretically impossible. Per the equation in the limit as velocity --> C the required energy goes to infinity, a singularity.
Small particles in an accelerator can get to high percentages of C.
There are faster than light theories but I think they all end up with energy issues.
There is also gravitational time dilation. Technically people living on a high mountain are aging at a different rate than those at sea level.
GPS has to account for time dilation between satellites and the ground. Without compensation GPS would not work. Common knowledge in technology.
HOW RELATIVISTIC TIME DILATION AND GPS ARE RELATED
Einstein's theory of relativity is one of the most significant achievements in the history of science. All the more so as it has been developed by only one person. Many of the conclusions drawn from this theory are literally striking and seem completely unbelievable at first glance. One of the...
As I said for most of my adult life I was immersed in science and its applications.
I think he mentions he has poor eyesight in the stuff under his name?
Why would that make him mistake energy for units?
See the attached photocopy of my college diploma. Note that I graduated "Summa Cum Laude" which in English is "with highest honors." I earned a perfect 4.0 GPA. It proves my outstanding ability to learn and know. I don't expect you to recognize that fact, of course.
That's a non sequitur. Just because I've done no "systematic study" on religious faith, it doesn't follow that I've done no study at all on the subject although I understand why you deny it. Are you hoping to set the bar high enough that I can't jump it?
I do note the degree is not in physics, though.
While I was at The Pennsylvania College Of Technology I took courses in science including astronomy, environmental science, and yes, physics too. I earned A's in all those courses.
Good for you.
Did you read the question I was asked? I answered it and provided proof that my answer is true. I decided to set an example for others here regarding how to work hard to learn and respect the truth. I think that lesson needed to be taught.
Yes. Congratulations on your business degree and high GPA. You should be proud of that. I’m not saying otherwise.
