Why is there a growing trend of ignorance towards Special Relativity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ignorance
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion highlights a concerning trend of widespread misunderstanding and skepticism towards Special Relativity (SR). Participants report encountering numerous individuals who either reject SR outright or demonstrate a fundamental lack of comprehension regarding its principles. Misconceptions include the belief that SR is merely a theory without evidence and the erroneous assertion that Einstein's authority does not validate his theories. The discussion emphasizes the need for better public understanding of scientific concepts and the challenges faced by those attempting to educate others about SR.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity principles
  • Familiarity with Einstein's contributions to physics
  • Basic knowledge of scientific theory versus scientific law
  • Awareness of common misconceptions in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the experimental evidence supporting Special Relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction
  • Study Einstein's original papers on Special Relativity for deeper insights
  • Explore educational resources that clarify the differences between scientific theories and laws
  • Investigate the psychological factors influencing public skepticism towards established scientific theories
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, educators, science communicators, and anyone interested in improving public understanding of Special Relativity and combating misinformation in scientific discourse.

  • #31
You are all one word god singularity stupid :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Pengwuino said:
haha i would have been a jerk and started scaring people by telling them "how easy it is to build a nuclear bomb".
The great thing about science is that everything is easy yet hard to do. The hydrogen bomb is as easy as A + B = C, but getting it to work is really damn hard.

About SR, is any of it actually proven? When I see a question in a textbook with something like "you are traveling at 0.98c and you see a man. 2 hours later you see that same man. How much time has passed relative to the man?" and it expects an actual answer, I can't help but think some guy just pulled this out of his ass since such an experiment would be impossible to setup.
 
  • #33
ShawnD said:
About SR, is any of it actually proven? When I see a question in a textbook with something like "you are traveling at 0.98c and you see a man. 2 hours later you see that same man. How much time has passed relative to the man?" and it expects an actual answer, I can't help but think some guy just pulled this out of his ass since such an experiment would be impossible to setup.

Well as to my understanding, there's particles all around us going damn well near the speed of light. Plus there's this muon that i hear is generated in the atmosphere but using Newtonian physics, it shouldn't be detectable on the ground but it is since it's going so insanely fast.
 
  • #34
ShawnD said:
The great thing about science is that everything is easy yet hard to do. The hydrogen bomb is as easy as A + B = C, but getting it to work is really damn hard.
About SR, is any of it actually proven? When I see a question in a textbook with something like "you are traveling at 0.98c and you see a man. 2 hours later you see that same man. How much time has passed relative to the man?" and it expects an actual answer, I can't help but think some guy just pulled this out of his ass since such an experiment would be impossible to setup.
You are thinking wrongly, SR is about monkeys not men. How can a monkey give birth to a man? That is why SR is wrong.
 
  • #35
jcsd said:
You are thinking wrongly, SR is about monkeys not men. How can a monkey give birth to a man? That is why SR is wrong.

Again, you are wrong, you clearly possesses no understanding of Spontaneous Relativity.
 
  • #36
jcsd said:
You are thinking wrongly, SR is about monkeys not men. How can a monkey give birth to a man? That is why SR is wrong.
I think you just hit on the perfect reply to thoses idiots; just go...

"So what your saying is that since monkeys can't give birth to men SR is wrong? because what you just said is just as stupid!"
 
  • #37
ShawnD said:
About SR, is any of it actually proven? When I see a question in a textbook with something like "you are traveling at 0.98c and you see a man. 2 hours later you see that same man. How much time has passed relative to the man?" and it expects an actual answer, I can't help but think some guy just pulled this out of his ass since such an experiment would be impossible to setup.

Whaaaaaaaa?

Are you serious?

Zz.
 
  • #38
And what I also hate is when people go "Why are you so damn defensive about this" when you tell them they are wrong and explain how SR works. I mean it's like people don't want to be told how the world works. Do they seriously read textbooks and think "damn this book is being defensive"?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K