In an obscure tribe a womans social status was earned by the accomplishments of her children and indicated by the animal hide she sat on at tribal council. Highest rank earned lion, next cheetah, and lowest hypopotomus, with others between. This system was overturned when it was discovered that the offspring of the lowest rank woman had done as much for the tribe's welfare as the sons of the women seated on the lion and cheetah skins combined. This led to the now famous discovery that "The son of the squaw of the hypopotomus, is equal to the sons of the squaws on the other two hides!"
The early posters are complete idiots, the second poster (to pythagoras) did a completely irralavent reply. A lot of posters are attacking and judging pythagoras because of her name, I am sure most people dont spend for hours thinking of a username for each of the many sites or whatever that they go to usally the username comes from the first thing they think of. Most of you are so egotistical and are typing all of that to sound better than you actually are. Pythagoras' theroem in Australia is taught in year 9 (age 15) its very easy to grasp but it doesnt get taught at that time due to some adolesents mentally mature later than most and the teachers and/or the education department dont want to make things worse, so maths and most other subjects dont really chance until VCE the last two years of schooling before university (or for americans college.)
Originally posted by pythagorasIf I were you, my friend, I would be more embarrassed by my spelling than by my performance over the board.
I find that sometimes on this site, I play someone with a very low ranking, and I play very badly. I find this very embarasing as I am not really that bad of a player.
pythagoras
Originally posted by shamleyIs everyone in Australians as dumb as you? I remember learning a before I finished intermediate (age 12). Also, reread what you wrote and try and make more sense next time.
Pythagoras' theroem in Australia is taught in year 9 (age 15) its very easy to grasp but it doesnt get taught at that time due to some adolesents mentally mature later than most and the teachers and/or the education department dont want to make things worse, so maths and most other subjects dont really chance until VCE the last two years of schooling before university (or for americans college.)
Originally posted by Balla88As I'm sure you know, one can gain an amazing amount of knowledge of Einstein's theories without calculus. Even the Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction formula uses no calculus, either to explain it or to describe it. While calculus is, indeed, handy in dealing with the more convoluted aspects of Einstein's theories, one can easily get quite deep into them without it. So give her a break.
Yes well it's natural that a 14 year old would understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity and his Field Equations, but not the Pythagorean Theorem. I guess your teachers decided to skip geometry and trignonometry and jump straight into partial differential equations. Very curious indeed.
Originally posted by SuzianneHow far can you get without d^2 = T^2 -X^2 - Y^2 - Z^2 or similar (equation for proper time)?
As I'm [b]sure you know, one can gain an amazing amount of knowledge of Einstein's theories without calculus. Even the Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction formula uses no calculus, either to explain it or to describe it. While calculus is, indeed, handy in dealing with the more convoluted aspects of Einstein's theories, one can easily get quite deep into them without it. So give her a break.[/b]
Originally posted by XanthosNZPerhaps I should have clarified and said without differential or partial differential equations.
How far can you get without d^2 = T^2 -X^2 - Y^2 - Z^2 or similar (equation for proper time)?
And since we're speaking of relativity (time is relative to the observer), then what the heck is "proper time"? I don't know if this concept is called something different here in America (like so many other things), but the equations clearly show that no one observer or observing point should take precedence. Thus, the relativity in the theory of relativity.
Originally posted by SuzianneAlso known as interval, the equation for it is ds * ds = dx*dx + dy*dy + dz*dz - c*c*dt*dt where c = speed of light. As I remember the convention for proper time goes dT*dT = dt *dt - (dx*dx - dy*dy - dz*dz) / c*c, if you use the latter it's called proper time, the former and it's called interval. There's no real difference, just a sign and where the speed of light goes - besides you tend to set c = 1 for these things as it makes equations less messy; then the experimentalists can sort it out. I'm certain proper time is known in the US as Feynman's books refer to it.
Perhaps I should have clarified and said without differential or partial differential equations.
And since we're speaking of relativity (time is relative to the observer), then what the heck is "proper time"? I don't know if this concept is called something different here in America (like so many other things), but the equations clearly show that no one ...[text shortened]... or observing point should take precedence. Thus, the relativity in the theory of relativity.
A discussion of almost all aspects of relativity, or indeed any aspect of science, should require no knowledge of calculus at all. But, if you wish to actually calculate anything in general relativity then you will need some pretty good calculus skills.
The most general formula for Pythagoras' theorem is:
ds*ds = g_{\mu}_{\nu} dx_{\mu} dx_{\nu}
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo my first post stands.
A discussion of almost all aspects of relativity, or indeed any aspect of science, should require no knowledge of calculus at all. But, if you wish to actually calculate anything in general relativity then you will need some pretty good calculus skills.
I know quite a bit about Relativity (enough to confuse the average American, although that's not saying too much), without having taken one calculus course. One thing I haven't gotten into is this concept of proper time. I'll have to consult Mr. Feynman, hehe...
I was just saying it's entirely possible to understand the majority of Relativity without knowing any calculus, so that's why I said give pythagoras a break. It's as if intimating that females have brains too somehow upsets the balance of nature or something, the way these guys take affront to the idea.