Einstein "fingers" and relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
Next: Questions about the relationship between the metric tensor and the gravitational field
From: "Giga" "Giga" on 16 Nov 2009 05:19 "Albretch Mueller" <lbrtchx(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1d64f591-443a-45ad-b0a7-4966673fb181(a)e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > I remember once I read some comments from Einstein himself in which > he somehow said that he could imagine what happen with space/time > through some weird play with his own fingers. Seriously. I am a > theoretical physicist myself and to me that was a very weird, > confusing and unpedagogical thing to hear, but I found it interesting > nevertheless. It is virtually impossible to search for: Einstein > fingers and get what you need > > Do you know what I am talking about? Could you help get to the source > of it? > > Thank you > lbrtchx I'd be interested to know about that as well as really find it hard to get my head round that idea. Who knows it might help.
From: Albretch Mueller on 16 Nov 2009 07:45 On Nov 15, 1:17 pm, physics_inquiry <physics_inqu...(a)yahoo.com.sg> wrote: > On Nov 15, 8:07 am, Albretch Mueller <lbrt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I remember once I read some comments fromEinsteinhimself in which > > he somehow said that he could imagine what happen with space/time > > through some weird play with his ownfingers. Seriously. I am a > > theoretical physicist myself and to me that was a very weird, > > confusing and unpedagogical thing to hear, but I found it interesting > > nevertheless. It is virtually impossible to search for:Einstein > >fingersand get what you need > > > Do you know what I am talking about? Could you help get to the source > > of it? > > > Thank you > > lbrtchx > > I don't know aboutEinstein, but I know Isaac Newton. > > Isaac Newton's greatness could have been the sensitivity of his > "feelings" as well as his clarity of thoughts. He could translate what > he feels into quantitative mechanics. > 1) friction - he moves his palms (fingers?) over his study table and > understands the notion of friction. > 2) inertial - he imagines sliding over ice over a pond in winter and > understands how without friction, of idealized "smoothness", things > would travel on without change in velocity. > 3) force = mass x acceleration - others could have been caught with > force proportional to speed, but Newton ( from 2) above) jumped to d2x/ > dt2 and not just dx/dt. > 4) action=reaction - Newton's sensitivity would now have missed that > from playing with a rope or bumping his head against a pillar, etc > 5) so what he needed was the mathematics of changes (in distance, > speed, space, time). So he invented calculus to put his ideas into > mathematical forms. > > So Isaac Newton's greatness may not be just the brain as everyone > imagines, but might as well be his exceptional ability to feel about > everyday phenomena. ~ Thank you physics_inquiry, it is somewhat funny to see the characteristic reaction physicists have when you try to talk to them about such matters or musicians when you tell them about the Physics/ Math underlying Music ;-) ~ I don't really think that Newton had any exceptional ability to perceive or -feel- about anything. He was just cultured and trained into physics and yes, part of what made him a great physicist was his own psychological investment (part of which seems to relate to him as many other great physicists/mathematicians/thinkers being Aspergerees ;-)) ~ Sure our extero-senses help us conceptualize such matters as friction and heat and our intero- ones time, balance and orientation, yet I see still a great difference between your point and Einstein's finger business, since they dont' really, straightforwardly relate to the relatively more "abstract" theories he authored. Unfairly trivializing your comments, I don't think that a ski sportsperson is a better candidate to understand "friction" ~ We physicists have this silly user illusion about physical matters being based on some kind of fixed, absolute reality which our theories continually (and asymptotically) approximate (which to me is similar to thinking that we humans were created/destined by God in more or less complicity with nature), but the huge problems we have with current theories (such as finding "logical" interpretations of the double-slit experiment) may be based to a large extent on our very underlying notions. We refuse to see that our minds/epistemic engagements are very much part of our "-physical- reality" ~ lbrtchx
From: zzbunker on 2 Dec 2009 02:43 On Nov 16, 7:45 am, Albretch Mueller <lbrt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 15, 1:17 pm, physics_inquiry <physics_inqu...(a)yahoo.com.sg> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 15, 8:07 am, Albretch Mueller <lbrt...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I remember once I read some comments fromEinsteinhimself in which > > > he somehow said that he could imagine what happen with space/time > > > through some weird play with his ownfingers. Seriously. I am a > > > theoretical physicist myself and to me that was a very weird, > > > confusing and unpedagogical thing to hear, but I found it interesting > > > nevertheless. It is virtually impossible to search for:Einstein > > >fingersand get what you need > > > > Do you know what I am talking about? Could you help get to the source > > > of it? > > > > Thank you > > > lbrtchx > > > I don't know aboutEinstein, but I know Isaac Newton. > > > Isaac Newton's greatness could have been the sensitivity of his > > "feelings" as well as his clarity of thoughts. He could translate what > > he feels into quantitative mechanics. > > 1) friction - he moves his palms (fingers?) over his study table and > > understands the notion of friction. > > 2) inertial - he imagines sliding over ice over a pond in winter and > > understands how without friction, of idealized "smoothness", things > > would travel on without change in velocity. > > 3) force = mass x acceleration - others could have been caught with > > force proportional to speed, but Newton ( from 2) above) jumped to d2x/ > > dt2 and not just dx/dt. > > 4) action=reaction - Newton's sensitivity would now have missed that > > from playing with a rope or bumping his head against a pillar, etc > > 5) so what he needed was the mathematics of changes (in distance, > > speed, space, time). So he invented calculus to put his ideas into > > mathematical forms. > > > So Isaac Newton's greatness may not be just the brain as everyone > > imagines, but might as well be his exceptional ability to feel about > > everyday phenomena. > > ~ > Thank you physics_inquiry, it is somewhat funny to see the > characteristic reaction physicists have when you try to talk to them > about such matters or musicians when you tell them about the Physics/ > Math underlying Music ;-) > ~ > I don't really think that Newton had any exceptional ability to > perceive or -feel- about anything. He was just cultured and trained > into physics and yes, part of what made him a great physicist was his > own psychological investment (part of which seems to relate to him as > many other great physicists/mathematicians/thinkers being > Aspergerees ;-)) > ~ > Sure our extero-senses help us conceptualize such matters as friction > and heat and our intero- ones time, balance and orientation, yet I see > still a great difference between your point and Einstein's finger > business, since they dont' really, straightforwardly relate to the > relatively more "abstract" theories he authored. Unfairly trivializing > your comments, I don't think that a ski sportsperson is a better > candidate to understand "friction" Well, that's what Physicists don't understand about science. Since most Skiers have never claimed to know much at all about friction. Just that they are much better candidates to understand AI, than physcists are. > ~ > We physicists have this silly user illusion about physical matters > being based on some kind of fixed, absolute reality which our theories > continually (and asymptotically) approximate (which to me is similar > to thinking that we humans were created/destined by God in more or > less complicity with nature), but the huge problems we have with > current theories (such as finding "logical" interpretations of the > double-slit experiment) may be based to a large extent on our very > underlying notions. We refuse to see that our minds/epistemic > engagements are very much part of our "-physical- reality" > ~ > lbrtchx- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Arindam Banerjee on 10 Dec 2009 18:39 Please, Einstein was the greatest bungler of all time. His theories of relativity are completely wrong, and no self-respecting person should support them. "Albretch Mueller" <lbrtchx(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1d64f591-443a-45ad-b0a7-4966673fb181(a)e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > I remember once I read some comments from Einstein himself in which > he somehow said that he could imagine what happen with space/time > through some weird play with his own fingers. Seriously. I am a > theoretical physicist myself and to me that was a very weird, > confusing and unpedagogical thing to hear, but I found it interesting > nevertheless. It is virtually impossible to search for: Einstein > fingers and get what you need > > Do you know what I am talking about? Could you help get to the source > of it? > > Thank you > lbrtchx
From: Inertial on 10 Dec 2009 22:22
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:rEfUm.61642$ze1.23557(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > Please, Einstein was the greatest bungler of all time. His theories of > relativity are completely wrong, and no self-respecting person should > support them. Except that they work so damned well and have not been experimentally refuted. That is *so* annoying for anti-Einstein cranks like you . instead you have to make personal attack on Einstein's character, and make wild unsupported assertions that relativity is wrong without ever being able to show how or why. Its quite sad really. |