1. I am 15 years old, still very young. I like studying modern physics, instead of the classical physics taught by teachers in school-it is boring and inaccurate.

I would like to share some of my initial forays into Einstein`s World by showing you some formulas that I know:

First, you need to know the difference between Galilean Transform and Lorentz Transform.

Galilean Transform
delta x prime= (delta x - v delta t)
delta y prime= delta y
delta z prime= delta z
delta t prime= delta t

Lorentz Transform
delta x prime= (delta x- v delta t)/F
delta y prime= delta y
delta z prime= delta z
delta t prime= (delta t - v delta x/c2)/F

F is lorentz factor which is F= square root (1-v2 /c2)
When the speed of light is 1, then all c will equal to 1, thus being cancelled off. This is true for all the above formulas.

Now, let me show you how to apply them.

suppose 2 events happen in the space-time. One of them happen in the first reference frame, S and when viewed in the second reference frame, S prime, they look the same but relative, thus relativity exists in both space and time, as we shall see later.

According to Einstein, length will be shortened when an object moves through space-time. This is known as length contraction.

Mathematically, when x changes, then t should be kept constant, thus t=0

So the first Lorentz transform become

delta x prime= delta x-v delta t /F
= delta x/F

if an object travels at 87% the speed of light in vacuum, c, then F becomes

F= square root 1-(v/c) square
= o.5

which means the length will be shortened to half the original value

so, delta x/0.5 = delta x prime
delta x= delta x prime times 0.5
if x is 6 cm, then x prime is 12 cm

The same matter repeats with time dilation, the shortening of time when clocks travel through space-time, simply substitute x=0 in to the forth Lorentz Transform and get the correct answer, if t prime is 6 seconds, t is only 3 seconds. Your(stationary) watch is running at a rate of steady 6 seconds, but when something/somebody approach 87% the speed of light, he/she/it/they will only age at half of your aging rate.

For combining speeds,

per Newton, Final velocity = velocity + velocity, but per Einstein, you can`t add up speeds beyond c, so

his formula is final velocity = (velocity 1+ velocity 2) divides by (1+ velocity 1 + velocity 2/c squared)

Enjoy Einstein`s World!

2. Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
I am 15 years old, still very young. I like studying modern physics, instead of the classical physics taught by teachers in school-it is boring and inaccurate.
All theories are inaccurate. The only difference is how much they're inaccurate. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that classical physics is a waste of time. If you find a more advanced textbook then you'll find material which is more interesting. When you find material to study which you can apply to life more readily then it make it more interesting.

However, that said, you're misusing the term classical physics since relativity falls under that category. Classical physics is all physics which isn't quantum physics in nature. Therefore special and general relativity are both classical theories.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
I would like to share some of my initial forays into Einstein`s World by showing you some formulas that I know:

First, you need to know the difference between Galilean Transform and Lorentz Transform.

Galilean Transform
delta x prime= (delta x - v delta t)
delta y prime= delta y
delta z prime= delta z
delta t prime= delta t

Lorentz Transform
delta x prime= (delta x- v delta t)/F
delta y prime= delta y
delta z prime= delta z
delta t prime= (delta t - v delta x/c2)/F

F is lorentz factor which is F= square root (1-v2 /c2)
The term Lorentz refers to the quantity 1/sqrt(1 - v2 /c2)

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
When the speed of light is 1, then all c will equal to 1, thus being cancelled off. This is true for all the above formulas.
It's not clear what you mean by that. Are you referring to units in which the speed of light is one? If so then what do you mean when you said "thus being cancelled off"?

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
Now, let me show you how to apply them.
No offense but it's a very good bet that most, if not all, members of this forum know how to apply them. I most certainly do, and then some. See Special Relativity

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
suppose 2 events happen in the space-time. One of them happen in the first reference frame, S and when viewed in the second reference frame, S prime, they look the same but relative,
What do you mean "look the same but relative"?

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
thus relativity exists in both space and time, as we shall see later.
This statement makes no sense. Relativity is not something that can be said to exist in that sense. When that term is used properly it refers to a theory.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
According to Einstein, length will be shortened when an object moves through space-time.
No. Distances parallel to the motion will be shortened while distances perpendicular too the motion won't be changed at all. And objects don't move through space-time. They move through space.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
This is known as length contraction.
Yep. We all know what length contraction is tool.

Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
Mathematically, when x changes, then t should be kept constant, thus t=0
That's not clear either. Whey saying things like this you have to state what it means, i.e. what does x represent and what do changes in it represent?

I got bored at this point. The rest is in my web page.

3. Originally Posted by Physicist

No offense but it's a very good bet that most, if not all, members of this forum know how to apply them. I most certainly do, and then some. See Special Relativity

I got bored at this point. The rest is in my web page.
Given the fact that there are quite a few errors in your web page, I wouldn't recommend it for learning relativity. Besides, it is bad form to keep referring to your webpage, so much more when it has quite a few errors.

4. Classical and Newtonian mechanics etc are not interesting? Strange.

The link below is meant to be humorous, as can be seen by the laughter it invokes.
Here's what a friend of Richard Dawkins would say:
Science is interesting...

5. Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
I am 15 years old, still very young. I like studying modern physics, instead of the classical physics taught by teachers in school-it is boring and inaccurate.
Nick - Please be warned that x0x is a noted troller. He was recently suspended for the second time in the last month or so. Since he trolled this thread he'll most likely be banned.

6. Originally Posted by Physicist
Nick - Please be warned that x0x is a noted troller. He was recently suspended for the second time in the last month or so. Since he trolled this thread he'll most likely be banned.
Pete,

I picked at random, your chapter on acceleration transformation. It is full of errors, it is actually embarrassing. So is your incessant self-promotion.

7. Moderator notice: Physicist - I am now going to apply the same kind of restriction on you here as applies on thescienceforum.com. Please tone right down on the self-promoting and self-aggrandising aspects of your posts and stick to the science.

Originally Posted by Physicist
Yep. We all know what length contraction is tool.
Really? Did you mean to put it that way?

Why not try encouraging a youngster who is obviously enthusiastic about physics?

8. Originally Posted by Nicholas Kang
I am 15 years old, still very young.
That's great -- welcome to the forum, Nicholas!

I like studying modern physics, instead of the classical physics taught by teachers in school-it is boring and inaccurate.
As has been noted, all theories have a limited domain of applicability, so they're all "inaccurate."

As for boring, perhaps you simply haven't been exposed to a sufficiently interesting variety of examples. Chaos is beautiful and fascinating, for instance (and extremely relevant), and is exhibited by "boring" Newtonian mechanics.

I would like to share some of my initial forays into Einstein`s World by showing you some formulas that I know:...

For combining speeds,

per Newton, Final velocity = velocity + velocity, but per Einstein, you can`t add up speeds beyond c, so

his formula is final velocity = (velocity 1+ velocity 2) divides by (1+ velocity 1 + velocity 2/c squared)
You may find it useful to look up the term rapidity in connexion with relativity. Unlike velocities, rapidities add directly.

Again, welcome to the forum!

9. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Moderator notice: Physicist - I am now going to apply the same kind of restriction on you here as applies on thescienceforum.com. Please tone right down on the self-promoting and self-aggrandising aspects of your posts and stick to the science.

Really? Did you mean to put it that way?

Why not try encouraging a youngster who is obviously enthusiastic about physics?
Oy vey!!! That was a typo. First off you have to realize that I wrote above
No offense but it's a very good bet that most, if not all, members of this forum know how to apply them.
(I put the underline in just here). So it was clear that I'm not trying to be rude in anyway. Then later on I saw him make a comment and then instead of saying it as We all know what length contraction is, too. I made a typo and wrote "too" not "tool". The smiley face was to make sure that Nick knew that I wasn't talking down to him.

So in this case I was guilty before being proved innocent, huh? You should have known better. I NEVER talk down to people. At least no to people who are polite and haven't attacked me a great deal or trolled me for a very long time. I simply don't act like that. My friends will attest to that. That means you put words into my mouth. Please don't do that. I'm not hungry.

10. Originally Posted by Physicist
That means you put words into my mouth.
No, you typed the words that you typed. Ok, it was a typo, but SpeedFreek gave you the benefit of the doubt by asking a question, not making a statement.

Stop being a drama queen, for Pete's sake (and yes, I chose that name deliberately).

As for your "no offense" comment, you should've realized that whether or not a 15-year-old has figured out what people may or may not know as common knowledge, he may simply be stating what he knows as an effort to engage others in conversation. No need to throw water -- however inoffensively -- on that impulse.

11. Nicholas, I apologise for the behaviour of x0x and physicist. Sometimes adults can behave much more like children than children. Please ignore it and welcome to the forum.

Moderator Warning: @x0x and physicist - any more nonsense and you get a weeks suspension. Nonsense includes almost anything except the direct, objective discussion of physics. (And any response to this note within this thread itself is nonsense.)

 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules