Rasher Null

mmm but you are using the properties of motion to measure velocity, just like for the Doppler effect, as I mentioned in my previous post. To clarify, I am proposing that dilation causes an object to move through space, and not vice versa.

There are scales of failure, ranging from arithmetic slipups to failing a three year course. Small scale failures are essential to learning - and highly desirable. Large scale failures should not exist in a sane education system. Something like the Khan Academy approach - where small "stepper modules" have to be truly mastered before taking the next module requires failing and retaking as normal and not somehow shameful. Where mastery cannot be achieved, then it is time to give up that particular line of study. So grades A-F are out, there are just passes representing mastery of modules.

WIth the doppler effect, say, you are measuring the effect of speed in an obvious way. One knows how speed (velocity) is causing the measurement by following the wave in time. The measurement is a known consequence of motion through space and time. With length dilation, this is not so (I think...). One could therefore argue that there is a property of the object , measured by dilation, that CAUSES velocity, and is not merely an effect of it. Perhaps...

That sounds about right to me. Unfortunately of course, homework, and the education system in general, is not primarily about learning , but that is another debate....

It's not cheating if there is a separate test called "exams". Homework should be part of learning - not failing.

If I can instantaneously snap an object (from severl vantage points and collate the images) and observe length dilation in 3D then I have a vector ... call it "relative velocity"

I am not saying all observers agree on velocity - only that RELATIVE VELOCITY can be measured without time.

Fine. So homework assistance proved fruitless because of the system's safety net of examinations. On the other hand, intensive homework help might indeed improve some people's ability in examination. In fact, there is a school of thought that says "homework" should be done in the classroom,. where there is a teacher to help .... and first encounter learning at home, where there is technology .....

So what's the problem??

mmmm .... this is the weak form of time involvment in measuring .. a practical consideration tather than a theoretical one.

Are you saying nobody would be able to tell the difference between a person who had homework done for them, and one that did not?

Really? So you were never impressed with Leibnitz or Newton then? Effort is great when it is achieving; not so great when it is like hitting one's head on a brick wall.

Have you heard of Catch 22?

If someone "does" someone else's homework for them, is that necessarily "bad"? If so , in what way is it bad? Couldn't it be good, in the sense that the helped person understands better?

I am prepared to believe it, if it is explained....

Not wrong if length dilation does not require time to observe... ("practical" time doesn't count does it? Or if it does then you should say that it is the practicality of measuring length dilation that requires time to perform, rather than a theoretical necessity...which is an interesting discussion in itself ..)

That's cos they ain't BASIC!

Well ... it's like your first boy/girlfriend .... sweet memories!

I suggest line numbered BASIC to begin at the very beginning - because the environment is simple and you can just think about the programming logic. Plus you will really appreciate a good OO language once you have struggled to write applications in line numbering with thousands of lines of code! Haha - I doubt anyone ever does that any more though ... If you want to be creative rather than ultra efficient - then Csharp is where its at. C++ is not worth all that pain for a microscopic increase in efficiency.

"Time is not needed to measure velocity". Profound? Promising? Provocative? Probably neither?

If he's brilliant at everything he should be a brilliant educator. So tell him you want to learn from him (genuinely) , but "it takes to two tango" and if he wants to be a great educator then he cannot blame everyone else all the time if he is not imparting his knowledge very successfully.

For the sake of simplicity I would prefer to stick to small rigid/near rigid balls than wade into fluids. Because of the existence of instantly observable length contraction of moving bodies, it would seem that in actual fact, time is not needed to measure velocity!!?? Thus objects could be said to possess some mysterious attribute that causes a change of position over time. I am not actually fretting over the nature of direction (though maybe I should it seems?) - I would say I want to know in what way two bodies - that are structurally identical but have different velocities - are intrinsically different, if in fact they are. Thanks for your welcome Steve , fellow crank!?

Interesting posts, I will have to spend some time thinking... I will be back though

Re Tim & Strange exchange : I think Tim is saying that Strange appears to be making contradictory statements as to whether he believes velocity is an intrinsic property of objects?? My position is that I don't know for sure and in exactly what way but the fact that objects effectively carry a velocity (relative!) vector around with them supports, to some extent at least, the notion that velocity might be an intrinsic property of objects - as opposed to space, say. As to whether the import of such thinking has scientific possibilities or is mere philosophic interpretation I am unsure about. Tim: I do wish I never used "know" in the thread title because it is too loaded. What I was really asking is if there is a property of velocity that belongs to an object. I am also interested in whether motion can be dissected and analysed further in various ways; how motion scales up from the quantum scale and so forth. Perhaps asking how an intrinsic velocity might operate is where I'm at? Noted with interest. Thanks!

Regarding contraction I am assuming that if the observer had a few cameras dotted about he would be able to discern the direction and speed of motion of the object.... If so then the object is effectively carrying around a vector of velocity for all to see without it having to actually move, but - though of course this is a vector of relative velocity and so one cannot say without reservation that motion is a sole intrinsic property of the body. However, it would seem to support a case for saying that objects have a sort of velocity property. If one were to wish this to be the case, then length scaling in 3 dimensions would be the neatest and simplest way to express this/ One could almost deduce length scaling from first principles! Is it philosophy? mmm maybe partly, but given that philosophy is about thinking, and scientific knowledge has to be assimilated by the brain, I think it helps to become more accepting of scientific knowledge to shoehorn in a bit of philosophical thinking into scientific discussions sometimes.... *runs away*