[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 541
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
First graders don't know. I do.
It's just that my high school physics teacher was dumbfounded by my question......... ))
And the question about proving that there is no such thing as faster than the speed of light was also difficult to answer...
Maybe he didn't answer it because he was too clever for the teacher? There are several degrees of "immersion" in answering such a question. Within the framework of the theory of relativity, and hence within the school curriculum, the answer is no. And here, for example, it says that scientists in September 2011 managed to record the speed of neutrinos exceeding the speed of light. But they are still cautious about drawing conclusions. I.e. scientists, and not a good one at that, are pretty much admitting it....
I am guided by facts. For example, if there is a trend, then there is a trend. If there is no trend, then there is no trend. A trend is defined by its fact. So it is with the speed of light.
What about the speed of light? Speed, like trend, is a relative concept.
In fact, it is clear that the modern theory of relativity is nothing more than another, more accurate approximation.
The good thing about physics is that it will evolve endlessly in its quest to describe the laws of nature.
Maybe he didn't answer because he was too clever for the teacher? The answer to such a question can be given in several degrees of "immersion". Within the framework of the theory of relativity, and hence within the school curriculum, the answer is no. And here, for example, it says that scientists in September 2011 recorded a neutrino velocity greater than the speed of light. But they are still cautious about conclusions. I.e. scientists, and not a good one at that, are pretty much admitting it....
Yes, I read it an hour ago))
What a load of crap!
They're both moving.
In fact, it is clear that the modern theory of relativity is nothing more than another, more accurate approximation.
The good thing about physics is that it will evolve endlessly in its quest to describe the laws of nature.
It's just that the theory of relativity is based on postulates. Whether a postulate ..... is a postulate is another question.
It's just that the theory of relativity is based on postulates. Whether a postulate is a ..... postulate is another question.
A postulate is nothing more than a necessary point of reference.
A postulate is nothing more than a necessary point of reference.
Necessary does not mean it is correct.
There is no definition of absolute speed. There is no instrument capable of measuring the speed of light, in one condition or another. What can we talk about then?
All properties are related to each other. If there is a maximum speed, then there must be other maximums - acceleration, density, mass, length, volume, etc. Where are they? They are not there. But there is speed... :)))
That's exactly what there isn't, it's stupidity.
Necessary does not mean correct.
It is simply convenient at this stage of learning.