1233: "Relativity"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1233: "Relativity"

Postby ps.02 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:32 am UTC

bmonk wrote:That's the whole reason it's a thought experiment--because it can't be a real experiment, now can it?

As opposed to observing a human butt at near light speed? Because that would be such a practical real experiment? In the apocryphal last words of Descartes, I think not.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1233: "Relativity"

Postby steve waterman » Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:52 pm UTC

at t = 0, x = x', y = y' z = z' [ as per Galilean ]

or notated* as
x wrt (0,0,0)A = x' wrt(0,0,0)B
y wrt (0,0,0)A = y' wrt(0,0,0)B
z wrt (0,0,0)A = z' wrt(0,0,0)B

Given at t = 0, x wrt (0,0,0)A = 2, x' wrt (0,0,0)B = 2,

after letting vt = 3 [ vt to B, keeping A stationary ]

1) x wrt (0,0,0)A = 2
2) x' wrt (0,0,0)B = 2

3) x wrt (0,0,0)B = -1
4) x' wrt (0,0,0)A = +5

ALL 4 of these equations are mathematically true.

Indeed, I AM using notation that the Galilean does not.

*I challenge - Someone to use some other notation method, I do not care, so long as
that notations shows co-ordinates wrt to which system whenever THEY SAY x' = x-vt.

That is, which x' and which x in their two equations????
x' = x-vt
x = x'+vt

Anyone like to give this a try, please?

ADDED How about this notation?...( after vt ) cutting to the chase
xA = x'B
xB = xA -vt instead of x'B = xA -vt
x'A = x'B +vt instead of xA = x'B +vt
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1233: "Relativity"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:05 pm UTC

Oh dear. Given this is a fairly lackluster comic, I can't help wondering if Randall is trolling him on purpose.

Pfhorrest wrote:(Which has made me wonder why "gram" wasn't defined as 1000 times its current scale in the first place, so we would have an unprefixed word for our base unit. Was there already a "gram" in use which was close to the mass of 1 mL of water or something?).

The "gramme" was the derived unit from the start. The original name for the kilogram was was the grave, which fell out of favor and naturally took the milligrave with it.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1233: "Relativity"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:42 pm UTC

For what very little it's worth, I thought this was one of the best comics he's done in some time. It warranted it hearty snerk from me. Which just goes to show the old saw about gusty busses.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1233: "Relativity"

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:09 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:*I challenge - Someone to use some other notation method, I do not care, so long as
that notations shows co-ordinates wrt to which system whenever THEY SAY x' = x-vt.

That is, which x' and which x in their two equations????
x' = x-vt
x = x'+vt

Anyone like to give this a try, please?


oh gods of reason, he's back. I thought that you swore off ever responding in here again, steve - especially considering all the effort people put in to teaching you your errors (which were then promptly ignored).
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1233: "Relativity"

Postby Klear » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:30 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
steve waterman wrote:*I challenge - Someone to use some other notation method, I do not care, so long as
that notations shows co-ordinates wrt to which system whenever THEY SAY x' = x-vt.

That is, which x' and which x in their two equations????
x' = x-vt
x = x'+vt

Anyone like to give this a try, please?


oh gods of reason, he's back. I thought that you swore off ever responding in here again, steve - especially considering all the effort people put in to teaching you your errors (which were then promptly ignored).


Oh he did... at least twenty times, if I recall correctly.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1233: "Relativity"

Postby steve waterman » Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:29 pm UTC

This is not the place to re-kindle my Relativity stuff, as my comments are not that related to the context of the comic.
So, I will not be doing any further posts onto this thread. Please excuse/ignore all my off-topic entries above.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 118 guests