Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:05 PM |
okay so i dont understand general relativity
i understood the math behind special relativity fine so can someone help me with understanding general relativity please |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sdfgw
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41681 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:06 PM |
yeah sure it's easy you just generalise
y'know like put more letters in |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
DigtzyDog
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7068 |
|
| |
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:07 PM |
sdfgw
i think i might be putting in the wrong letters because it makes no sense |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
victor142
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3085 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:07 PM |
| Space and time is relative. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:08 PM |
| Why? You growing up to be einstein? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:08 PM |
shooper
no because i want to understand the modern view of our universe unfortunately i cant find anything good on quantum physics |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sdfgw
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41681 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:10 PM |
@boeing:
nah man it's easy
you know like
um tryin to think of examples
ok um
you ever notice how like you take a square like
8^2 = 64
if you multiply the adjacent numbers you get like
7 * 9 = 63
and this works for frickineverythin and you're like woah how
then you generalise it
(x+1)(x-1) = x^2 - 1
and then you get like nobel prizes and stuff
basically you take special relativity and make it work on more stuff and that makes it better |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sdfgw
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41681 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:11 PM |
"Space and time is relative."
it's startling how I can deliberately try to be stupid and still wind up smarter than a sincere reply |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:12 PM |
but the math is more confusing for general relativity
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:13 PM |
| the one problem i have with special relativity is in his derivation of the lorentz equations einstein seems to be pulling random variables out of nowhere and im not using anything more than the book and my head so i cant play around with the equations |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
snow9450
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Apr 2009 |
| Total Posts: 1697 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:14 PM |
| The answers seven obviously. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sdfgw
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41681 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:14 PM |
no it isn't it's fun
generalisation = making better = making more enjoyable = +fun = +ease = easier
give me basically any relativity equation and i'll generalise it
also don't give me that obvious one because I actually do know how to generalise that, irony aside |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:15 PM |
"nah man it's easy
you know like
um tryin to think of examples
ok um
you ever notice how like you take a square like
8^2 = 64
if you multiply the adjacent numbers you get like
7 * 9 = 63
and this works for frickineverythin and you're like woah how
then you generalise it
(x+1)(x-1) = x^2 - 1
and then you get like nobel prizes and stuff
basically you take special relativity and make it work on more stuff and that makes it better"
Holy crap my mind |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:15 PM |
what if i give you a set of transformations can you generalize those
also i thought the obvious one was the generalized one but if its not please generalize it |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:15 PM |
| General relativity is the statement that time is distorted by gravity. If you have ever seen that whole thing about the giant grid representing space-time, and an object with gravity kindof distorting it, it will probobly be easy to understand what i am saying. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sdfgw
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41681 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:16 PM |
@TJIITS:
now i'm curious
what actually blew your mind there, the revelation of a general mathematical trick or an allergy to basic algebra |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:16 PM |
joke
if you take the number x+2 and x-2 then you get x^2-4 example 8 64 6*10 60 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:17 PM |
awsome
i know what it is i want to understand the math behind it though its all well and good to know something its better to understand why its right |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:19 PM |
| Well, the gravity's effect on space decreases with a nice half life relationship, and so I assume that the same is true for gravity's effect on time. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:19 PM |
"the revelation of a general mathematical trick or an allergy to basic algebra"
it blew my mind too until i remembered "wait i did this recently" when you use words it looks more confusing than to use math(s) notation or whatever the proper terminology is |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:20 PM |
"gravity's effect on space decreases with a nice half life relationship"
That was law of universal gravitation. General relativity has a higher degree of accuracy than that, and has superseded it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:23 PM |
"now i'm curious
what actually blew your mind there, the revelation of a general mathematical trick or an allergy to basic algebra"
A bit of both Mixed in with tiredness wow |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
sdfgw
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 41681 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:26 PM |
"if you take the number x+2 and x-2 then you get x^2-4 example"
i'm killing this now
(x-a) = x^2 - a^2
generalisation saves the day from an onset of pointless crap once again
"what if i give you a set of transformations can you generalize those
also i thought the obvious one was the generalized one but if its not please generalize it"
e=mc^2
energy is mass times speedolight squared
we all know this
this is actually a specific form of another equation
energy can be given as a vector, with one component as masstimesspeedolightsquared and one component is momentumtimesspeedoflight
note that momentum is mass*speed, therefore it only needs multiplying by c once to achieve the same units as mc^2
so anyway this is a vector and from pythag the energy can be given as
e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 e = root((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2)
where e is energy, m is mass, p is momentum and c is speed of light
in the cases of anti-matter and matter annihilation (pretty much the only cases where this is relevant) there is no momentum because the velocity is zero (the particles hit each other head on, cancelling out momentum). therefore p = 0 and it is reduced to
e = root((mc^2)^2) e = mc^2
whoopdefrickingdo
interesting in the case of photons, it is the mass that is 0 and not the momentum, yielding
e = pc
but yeah that's just side notes |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2012 07:26 PM |
| I find that with a lot of theoretical physics, there isn't usually much math behind it, it is more like a theory as to how the universe works. If you look it up, I'm sure you will find some sort of equation, but it may be more vague than you are looking for. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|