My basic thought on relativity!@

[pljames]

My science friends,

I feel I understand the basics of relativity. My perception is, if you are observing a object (lets call it object (b)) from point (a), (reguardless of the velocity of the object (b) in space and there is also another person (observer © is quite a distants away as well, both observer (a)&© are viewing the object (b) from different angles but are still relative in there own positions to object (b), even if object (b) is moving (reguardless of toward or away from you) at the time. This is how I percieve Einsteins theory.

I am close, out of the universe or just another stab in the dark at what I think about the theory? I need your help in satisfing my curiosity.

 

My whole philosohy is covered by his theory. I have no PHD,degree or any degree in science whatever. I am just a armchair science hobbist.

Thank you. pljames

[lethalfang]

The big idea in Einstein's relativity is that the laws of physics is same in all frames of reference. You only observe the observable in your frame of reference, and you can only make conclusions based on observation from your frame of reference.

Whether or not an object is absolutely moving is an irrelevent and wrong question. The only question with any relevence to you as an observer, assuming you are not experiencing acceleration is that, is the object moving with relative to your frame of reference.

[pljames]

The only question with any relevence to you as an observer, assuming you are not experiencing acceleration is that, is the object moving with relative to your frame of reference. Dear lethalfang,

 

Excellent answer thank you. I now basiciclly understand Einsteins theory basically. You have made my year. I now love science. pljames

[Dave]

Well, that's a bit extreme from one explanation but whatever floats your boat

 

Just bear in mind it takes a long time to get your head around what's going on in SR. Best way of understanding is to do examples, and lots of them.

[DQW]

Not to trash this party, but dear pljames : in answer to your first question, I'd have to say that you are (or were, when you wrote the first post) not close at all to understanding (the special theory of) relativity. I hope you do not take this as an insult at all. It is an honest opinion in response to your question. I only hope it spurs you on to read and learn more.

 

Now it may be that you have a better understanding after reading 'fang's post. However, reading your response to it - especially the part that you chose to quote, I have to say, again, that you are still a good way off. What fang is talking about is one of the postulates (assumptions) that SR is based upon - not any of the amazing results that come out of it (though the validity of the postulate has been established through measurements/verifications of the results). In fact, an only slightly weaker form of that postulate was proposed about half a millenium ago, by Galileo. Much of the interesting physics in SR comes out of the Lorentz transforms that ensure the second postulate (the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the inertial frame from which it is measured) holds, and the geometric construction of these transforms.

 

It is this departure from the Galilean transforms that makes SR interesting, as well as highly non-intuitive (one might say, "confounding" even). Some of the interesting ideas that come out of SR are the understanding of how lengths and times measured in different inertial frames are related; and how electric and magnetic fields transform.

 

While I claim no superior understanding of relativity, I can say for sure that if what you have learnt excites you, then there's tons more of wondrous beauty to be found in learning relativity more carefully.

 

I hope your love for science only grows, but keep in mind that it takes careful study to unearth much of the beauty that lies hid in it..