| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Zack" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2005 12:11:45 PM |
| Object: |
General Relativity |
I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student of
Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university does
not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to use
to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had training
in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up to a
working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
16 Aug 2005 09:32:44 PM |
|
|
"Relativity for the Million" by Martin Gardner is a good starter book,
although it does contain some mistaks, like claiming that a spinning
top can be considered to be non-spinning according to the equivalence
principle, but this violates common sense constructivistic cybernetics.
Also, all of Relativity, both Special and General only comes into
play at large velocities and strong gravitaional fields; where we live
on the surface of an ordinary planet where interactions between people
are non-relativistic cybernetics rules, particularly the Metasystem
Transition which is converting all the systems of the Earth into a
single Global Brain much to the horror of old time Reaganesque
anti-communists.
------
As before, no replies will be read.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
18 Aug 2005 07:18:39 PM |
|
|
"Zack" <klw1026@mail.ecu.edu> wrote in message
news:1124212305.741870.24540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student of
| Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university does
| not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to use
| to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had training
| in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up to
a
| working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
Ok... You should first learn that despite any claims to the contrary,
GR is based upon SR which is based on a faulty definition,
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
What I suggest you do is read that, understand it, and read this.
Relativity for Dummies. (I'm "proving" SR for you.)
Step 1: Train, 32 units, speed 3 units/sec .
Step 2: Track, 80 units, speed zero.
Step 3: Light, 5 units/sec, track frame.
Step 4: Light leaves 0, both frames of reference.
Step 5a: Light arrives at 80, track frame, time 16 seconds = 80/5,
reflects.
Step 5b: Light arrives at 32, train frame, time 16 seconds = 32/(5-3),
reflects.
Step 6a: Light arrives at 60, track frame, time 4 seconds =
(80-60)/(5+3).
Step 6b: Light arrives at 0, train frame, time 4 seconds = 32/(5+3).
Step 7: Bring in Einstein and his cuckoo transforms.
tau = (t - vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= (20 - 3*60/25) / 0.8
= 12.8/0.8 = 16 seconds
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= (60-3*16) / 0.8
= 40 units.
Step 8:
Verify:
Train is now 40 units long, time for light to travel train both ways =
16 seconds
c = x/t,
= 80/16 = 5, same as track.
Speed of light is same in both frames.
32 unit train was length-contracted down from 40 because it's speed was
0.6c
Track is not length-contracted, speed of light is 5 units/sec in track
frame.
DONE.
If you do not understand it, give up.
If you agree with it, carry on.
If you question it, you may become a mathematician or physicist.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
16 Aug 2005 01:15:07 PM |
|
|
"Zack" <klw1026@mail.ecu.edu> wrote in message news:1124212305.741870.24540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student of
Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university does
not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to use
to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had training
in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up to a
working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
Definitely for starters:
Robert Geroch:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226288641/102-8846451-5274557?v=glance
Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler:
http://www.eftaylor.com/special.html
Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler:
http://www.eftaylor.com/general.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
16 Aug 2005 05:33:50 PM |
|
|
"Zack" <klw1026@mail.ecu.edu> wrote in news:1124212305.741870.24540
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student of
Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university does
not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to use
to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had training
in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up to a
working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
18 Aug 2005 07:55:30 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96B56B76213A0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| "Zack" <klw1026@mail.ecu.edu> wrote in news:1124212305.741870.24540
| @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
|
| > I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student
of
| > Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university
does
| > not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to
use
| > to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had
training
| > in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up
to a
| > working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
| >
|
| How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
|
| Klazmon.
Good grief no!
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
18 Aug 2005 10:44:27 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in news:66aNe.803$5m3.303
@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96B56B76213A0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| "Zack" <klw1026@mail.ecu.edu> wrote in news:1124212305.741870.24540
| @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
|
| > I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student
of
| > Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university
does
| > not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to
use
| > to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had
training
| > in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up
to a
| > working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
| >
|
| How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
|
| Klazmon.
Good grief no!
Why do you say that?
Klazmon.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
19 Aug 2005 11:29:36 AM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96B7A02015D87Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in news:66aNe.803$5m3.303
| @fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
|
| >
| > "Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
| > news:Xns96B56B76213A0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| >| How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
| >|
| >| Klazmon.
| >
| > Good grief no!
|
| Why do you say that?
|
| Klazmon.
Hmmm... long story, but I'll tell it since it's only a cut and paste.
Remember that some of my comments were directed at another witness,
so don't take them personally.
GR is based on SR, SR is based on Einstein's definition, Misner, Thorne
& Wheeler
are continuing in Einstein's tradition. So instead of starting halfway
through, start
at the beginning. Hope you are good at high-school algebra, I wont go as
far as calculus.
Reference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
The first transformation we are given is the Galilean,
x' = x-vt
y = y
z = z
t = t
You have to agree with that, Einstein states:
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."
We have completed the transform from the stationary system, K, to the
moving system
which I'm going to name k' because Einstein doesn't give it a name.
You'll see why shortly.
For all x in K, x' in k', (x',y,z,t) = g(x,y,z,t).
You cannot possible disagree with that, you can only object to my choice
of name.
It is clear, so ist klar, in agreement with experience, and because
Einstein says so,
a point at rest in system k' is independent of time.
We have now completed the transformation from K to k', the function g,
and can place
K on the back burner.
You cannot possibly disagree with that. (I know of one dumb relativist
that does...
he insists the system of coordinates k' doesn't exist. Such is the
mentality I deal with here.)
Now we come to Einstein's transformation.
Not Lorentz's, not Galileo's, but Einstein's.
For all x in k', xi in kappa, (xi, eta,zeta,tau) = cuckoo(x',y,z,t)
You can now begin disagreeing out of pure phuckwittery.
We have a transformation from the moving system k' to the
moving system kappa.
Einstein would have you believe that
tau = cuckoo_tau(g(x,y,z,t))
xi = cuckoo_xi(g(x,y,z,t))
is called the "Lorentz transformation".
I call it the cuckoo transformation, there is no relative motion between
k' and kappa, the time in k' has been found to be x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v),
the only
purpose to the function cuckoo_tau is to satisfy Einstein's fraudulent
whim,
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
As Counsel for the Physicists, I rest my case.
As Counsel for the Mathematicians, we have yet to prove that cuckoo_tau
is not a linear
function.
But I did that already, so I'll repeat it with additional comment for
the incompetent.
Here it is algebraically:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
(given)
Doubling both sides:
tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Taking out the t for 3:00pm on a Friday afternoon:
tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Synchronize clocks at t = 0, tau(0,0,0,0) = 0, we remove tau(0,0,0,0)+
tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x',0,0,x'/(c-v))
Taking coordinate x' as infinitessimally small, as Einstein says,
you not quite realizing x' is both a coordinate and a distance,
he does that to differentiate, so we leave the distance alone,
dx/dt = x/t anyway with a constant velocity.
But wait!
WHY is coordinate x' zero, other than the reason I'd given?
Very simple. There is no relative motion between k' and kappa,
the coordinate x' is independent of time. We do not have
xi = x'-ut or x' = x'+ut or any other function xi = fuckup(x')
for Lorentz's sake, there is no u, v, w or velocity between system k'
and system kappa. The time at zero is the same time at x', same time at
xi;
no translation between frames, this is the moving frame only, the
stationary
frame K is simmering on the back burner.
Hence:
tau(0,0,0, x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v))
Removing the superfluous coordinates, all zero:
tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = 2 * tau(x'/(c-v))
Setting the time a = x'/(c-v) and b =x'/(c+v) for clarity:
tau(a+b) = 2*tau(a)
Renaming tau as f,
f(a+b) = 2f(a) or
½f(a+b) = f(a)
Now tell me that's a linear function, a > b, we have
½f(1+0) = f(1)
"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear
on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to
space and time." -- Albert Phuckwit/Huckster Einstein.
In the second place tau is not a linear function. -- Androcles.
In the third place there are no coordinates to transform.
In the fourth place you've been had! (and not by me either)
I ask the jury to convict Einstein on the charge of fraud.
I now rest my case as a mathematician also.
Androcles whispers to his learned colleague, Llanzlan Klazmon,
"I'd enter him an insanity plea if I were you, he's going down".
Counsel for the defence has the floor.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
19 Aug 2005 11:40:59 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96B7A02015D87Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in news:66aNe.803$5m3.303
| @fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
|
| >
| > "Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
| > news:Xns96B56B76213A0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| >| How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
| >|
| >| Klazmon.
| >
| > Good grief no!
|
| Why do you say that?
|
| Klazmon.
Hmmm... long story, but I'll tell it since it's only a cut and paste.
Remember that some of my comments were directed at another witness,
so don't take them personally.
[snip Androcles usually parody of SR]
You can make your own judgment about the nature of that
argument. However, since the OP has passed mathematics
courses and can presumably follow a mathematical argument
better than Androcles, he should be fine with Misner,
Thorne & Wheeler.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
19 Aug 2005 01:07:56 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124469659.685461.122760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
| > news:Xns96B7A02015D87Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| > | "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
news:66aNe.803$5m3.303
| > | @fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
| > |
| > | >
| > | > "Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
| > | > news:Xns96B56B76213A0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| > | >| How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
| > | >|
| > | >| Klazmon.
| > | >
| > | > Good grief no!
| > |
| > | Why do you say that?
| > |
| > | Klazmon.
| >
| > Hmmm... long story, but I'll tell it since it's only a cut and
paste.
| > Remember that some of my comments were directed at another witness,
| > so don't take them personally.
|
| [snip Androcles usually parody of SR]
FUCKWIT.
*plonk*
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
19 Aug 2005 01:09:07 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:0epNe.1729$5m3.152@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124469659.685461.122760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
| > news:Xns96B7A02015D87Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| > | "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
news:66aNe.803$5m3.303
| > | @fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
| > |
| > | >
| > | > "Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
| > | > news:Xns96B56B76213A0Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
| > | >| How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
| > | >|
| > | >| Klazmon.
| > | >
| > | > Good grief no!
| > |
| > | Why do you say that?
| > |
| > | Klazmon.
| >
| > Hmmm... long story, but I'll tell it since it's only a cut and
paste.
| > Remember that some of my comments were directed at another witness,
| > so don't take them personally.
|
| [snip Androcles usually parody of SR]
FUCKWIT.
*plonk*
Randy, is this your third or fourth plonk?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
19 Aug 2005 03:48:33 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:0epNe.1729$5m3.152@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
*plonk*
Randy, is this your third or fourth plonk?
You mean today or overall? I've lost count on both scores.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "the softrat" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
16 Aug 2005 07:59:24 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 10:33:50 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
Klazmon.
Jackass!
'taint funny, McGee!"
the softrat
Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes.
mailto:softrat@pobox.com
--
No matter where you go, there you are
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
16 Aug 2005 09:04:17 PM |
|
|
the softrat <softrat@pobox.com> wrote in
news:st25g1501uj3e6k03reu16a5j2popftnvl@4ax.com:
On 17 Aug 2005 10:33:50 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
How about "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler
Klazmon.
Jackass!
'taint funny, McGee!"
Idiot.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
17 Aug 2005 09:52:25 AM |
|
|
In article <1124212305.741870.24540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Zack <klw1026@mail.ecu.edu> wrote:
I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student of
Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university does
not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to use
to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had training
in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up to a
working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
"Exploring Black Holes" by Thorne and Wheeler. They do an amazing amount
of general relativity with little more than high school algebra. But the
conceptual understanding they provide cannot be beat. Mainly, what is the
metric, and what do you do with it when you have one?
When differential geometry is motivated, I would recommend going to a more
standard text to learn the details. Schutz's "A First Course in General
Relativity" is supposed to be the one you read before MTW's "Gravitation",
but I thought it was a bit confusing, partly because several different
notations were used interchangeably for the same operations. I thought
the more old-fashioned Bergmann's "Introduction to the Theory of
Relativity" was easier to follow, and it's available as a cheap Dover
book.
MTW is not a good introductory text. I would recommend "Exploring Black
Holes" and then Bergmann, and get MTW if you love the subject and have to
get into the advanced material.
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
16 Aug 2005 08:24:06 PM |
|
|
Zack wrote:
I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student of
Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university does
not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to use
to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had training
in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up to a
working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
Sean Carrol's book is good for self study. It is not the deepest
treatise in GR but it covers the mathematics very adequately and does
justice to the physics. You can buy the hardcover edition or get a PDF
version online for free.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: General Relativity |
17 Aug 2005 12:42:17 AM |
|
|
Zack wrote:
I was wondering if anybody could help me. I am currently a student of
Mathematics and Physics at a university. However, my university does
not offer a class on GR and I am having trouble finding a book to use
to teach myself. Does, anybody know a good book? I have had training
in Mathematics up to the advanced calculus stage and in physics up to a
working knowledge of quantum mechanics. Thanks for your time.
Get morpheus and search for physics ebooks. There's gigs of useful
stuff (many are standard college texts).
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
