Mathematicians solve a complex, 120 year-old problem...

[Jon Miller]

Not really sure, it is built into all theories from 1930s onwards.

If you look at applications that explicitly depend on SR, I don't think much does. We don't very often have massive particles going near the speed of light.

Jon Miller

[notyoueither]

I edited it out because I thought you already had been addressed by Kuci.

I asked if the other advances would have come in the absense of SR.

Jon, if it was built into all other theories by the 30's, what would have become of those theories without our German patent agent and his ecclectic scribblings?

If it is built in, it is built upon, yes?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I wouldn't go so far as to say Kitty is Jesus.

This is kind of a funny coincidence: I found my coworker tonight when I went to work and the first words out of his mouth were, "You look like Jesus."

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
My point is I was waiting to see who would be the first to take a smarter-than-thou tone...

I don't really get your motivation.
Of course someone explaining something to you has to take at least somewhat a "smarter-than-thou-about-this-particular-subject" tone or else they wouldn't be explaining it to you ?

You expect them to start their explanation with a " by the way I know even less than you about this but..."?



I guess I just take most posts at face value in general. I never understand the motivation behind trolling and the kind of behavior you are describing here. If enough people acted this way (posting trolls, traps to see who will be the first to react in a certain way, etc..) it would render all posting completely useless.
Why not post what you actually think?


For example I could have posted here something completly random that I didn't think to see who would react some way. Then someone would react some way but was doing it just to troll and it wasn't really what he thought, etc...

We end up with interactions between personas that don't even exist. That's useless IMHO.

To get back to the main point, you posted a bunch of mumbo-jumbo crap. Taking it at face value, I spent a paragraph explaining it, and one line pointing out that it was REALLY off. You claim you were baiting.
What did you get?
You learned that I'm a dick?
First, that assumes that I'm also not baiting, but I claim I'm not so ok.
But also, if what you were posting was what you really thought, my response seems pretty well-measured to me.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Not really sure, it is built into all theories from 1930s onwards.

If you look at applications that explicitly depend on SR, I don't think much does. We don't very often have massive particles going near the speed of light.

Jon Miller

I think that's a strange definition.
Anything that couldn't be accomplished without calculations that depend on SR assumptions is an application of SR in my mind.

As far as I know, this includes high precision GPS, for example.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Flubber
I'll be excited if we can build stronger things with less materials or whatnot but this just seems to be an academic exercise with no real point.

Most fundamental science is like that... until it becomes actually used, decades or even centuries later. Really, what use was Copernicus' astronomy besides intellectual w@nking?

[DRoseDARs]

Lul Thyme, others in this thread seemed to manage just fine in their attempt at explanation without a condescending "You have no idea what you're talking about." line, and the fact that you don't even see how that was condescending in tone shows just how inclined towards dickness you are.

[Kuciwalker]

No one addressed the point he did. The post he responded to was painfully ignorant.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Lul Thyme, others in this thread seemed to manage just fine in their attempt at explanation without a condescending "You have no idea what you're talking about." line, and the fact that you don't even see how that was condescending in tone shows just how inclined towards dickness you are.

Like Kuci said, not a single other post even addressed the subject your of meaningless post, let alone "seemed to manage just fine in their attempt at explanation"


EDIT:
Ah yes I found one you were right:

Originally posted by Pekka
And I'll take science and research over blaablaablaa.

This was the only response to your post, besides mine.
I guess if I ever wanted to please you with a non-dick explanation this is what I should do
....

I never said I wasn't condescending!!
I said "well-measured"!
Huge difference.
My post WAS slightly condescending, but the post I was responding to warranted it. (I say slightly because while there was one line that could be considered so, there is a full paragraph that is totally neutral explanation, which is one more than any other post, contrary to your last claim.. )

I don't even know why you are arguing. If your post WAS in fact bait, you should acknowledge that it was in fact very dumb and that a condescending answer was on the level.
You could argue that I'm a ****** or whatever for not noticing that you were just joking (if you were) but, again, my response was very appropriate considering the level of the post I was responding to, if taken at face value.

Personally, I think that your comprehension of the subject matter isn't much above that post of yours, if at all, which is why you're defending it this way, but that's slightly besides the point.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I edited it out because I thought you already had been addressed by Kuci.

I asked if the other advances would have come in the absense of SR.

Jon, if it was built into all other theories by the 30's, what would have become of those theories without our German patent agent and his ecclectic scribblings?

If it is built in, it is built upon, yes?

As I said, SR was coming anyways. It wasn't a big advancement.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


I think that's a strange definition.
Anything that couldn't be accomplished without calculations that depend on SR assumptions is an application of SR in my mind.

As far as I know, this includes high precision GPS, for example.

A better example. The metal needs to be strong enough to handle the compression and expansion in in a combustion motor. (let's say...)

Is the car an application of the combustion engine, or the advancements in metallurgy?

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

Both.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


A better example. The metal needs to be strong enough to handle the compression and expansion in in a combustion motor. (let's say...)

Is the car an application of the combustion engine, or the advancements in metallurgy?

Jon Miller

Kuci is faster, but I want to scream both and more.
A car is an application of many different things no?

[Jon Miller]

But the metallurgy wasn't the enabling discovery. Similiarly with the Nuclear bomb.

You (or someone else?) seemed to imply that the theoretical work needed was in SR. It wasn't, it was in nuclear physics (and probably some atomic physics, as well as a lot of engineering).

It was this understanding that I was trying to counter. That is, the understanding that it was SR that was the enabling discovery, or even an equal part enabling discovery.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


I was referring to special relativity.
I know Lorentz and some others had done a lot of the work (I didn't even mention Einstein I think), my point was that from the time these ideas were put forward and somewhat tested until a "practical application" was a pretty long time.
Moreover, it wasn't clear at the time what the future applications would be if ever.

I don't specifically want to argue this point, but while SR is very small stuff compared to GR, I think saying that it was obvious to everyone is at least a slight overstatement

I don't remember (once more, memory is bad, but still, I think this is the case), any oposition to SR. It was very much a ah... yeah, everything fits now. There were experimental tests that 'proved' it that actually came out before the theory (But Einstein didn't know of them). So yeah, it was obvious.

It would have been required, to explain experimental results, at (roughly) the time of it's discovery. If Einstein didn't arrive with it, someone else would have within a few years.

So as far as physicists think, a practical application already existed. The same was true with nuclear physics... the fact that nuclear physics led to nuclear weapons is just a side note.

GR on the other hand wasn't generally agreed upon. And took a while for experimental evidence to 'prove'. In fact, there are still people today who disagree with it.

Jon Miller