so i’m doing an astronomy project on einstein (his bio + e=mc2 and relativity)
and in addition to a research paper we have to do a 5-10 minute presentation w/ some kind of visual aid, powerpoint (not wanting to do), poster, diagram…something
just trying to get some ideas how i could do this or else im just going to resort to the whiteboard and expo markers.
pz nigs
Don’t plagiarize all of it…
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Don’t plagiarize all of it…
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/Einstein.htm
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/relativity.php
[/quote]
Done and done.
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
so i’m doing an astronomy project on einstein (his bio + e=mc2 and relativity)
and in addition to a research paper we have to do a 5-10 minute presentation w/ some kind of visual aid, powerpoint (not wanting to do), poster, diagram…something
just trying to get some ideas how i could do this or else im just going to resort to the whiteboard and expo markers.
pz nigs[/quote]
Einstein’s bio and a relativity? That sounds like a lot for a research paper.
As for a presentation, why don’t you do a derivation of e=mc^2? (Relatively speaking, it’s not hard) That would be cool, since then you and your classmates would not only know what the most famous equation in the world says, but also why it’s true. If that’s a bit too much, you could show how magnetic force is a consequence of relativity (it’s a relativistic effect of electrical attraction, sort of). That requires basically no math at all, just an argument about electric charge and reference frames. If that’s still not what you had in mind, just go online and look up pictures of gravitational lensing or something like that. You could talk about the initial push to confirm general relativity with a picture of the stars around a solar eclipse. Any of these would use powerpoint.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
so i’m doing an astronomy project on einstein (his bio + e=mc2 and relativity)
and in addition to a research paper we have to do a 5-10 minute presentation w/ some kind of visual aid, powerpoint (not wanting to do), poster, diagram…something
just trying to get some ideas how i could do this or else im just going to resort to the whiteboard and expo markers.
pz nigs[/quote]
Einstein’s bio and a relativity? That sounds like a lot for a research paper.
As for a presentation, why don’t you do a derivation of e=mc^2? (Relatively speaking, it’s not hard) That would be cool, since then you and your classmates would not only know what the most famous equation in the world says, but also why it’s true. If that’s a bit too much, you could show how magnetic force is a consequence of relativity (it’s a relativistic effect of electrical attraction, sort of). That requires basically no math at all, just an argument about electric charge and reference frames. If that’s still not what you had in mind, just go online and look up pictures of gravitational lensing or something like that. You could talk about the initial push to confirm general relativity with a picture of the stars around a solar eclipse. Any of these would use powerpoint. [/quote]
i think i’m just going to do a poster w/ a lot of crap glued to it lol.
i did write something similar to magnets in my paper, but i said that since planets orbit each other but don’t have magnetic attraction that there has to be a reason why they would do so and that the warping of space/time pretty much is the only explanation (even though we already know it exists)
for the e=mc2 thing i gave an example of how many gallons of water it would take to fuel all the cars in the US for a year (given last years fuel consumption stats) but gotta thank my boy Hakon for crunching the numbers lol.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Don’t plagiarize all of it…
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/Einstein.htm
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/relativity.php
[/quote]
cool gonna go over this l8er. most my paper is written, just focusing on relativity right now but i can prob grab some more info from this.
haha, this is so well timed. I just started writing my report about, the galileitransformation, the lorentztransformation, and I’m being asked to derive E=mc^2.
lorentz transformation = lorenz contraction?
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
lorentz transformation = lorenz contraction?[/quote]
Not exactly.
The transformation is a way of “transforming” one set of coordinates from one inertia system, to another system, with a relative velocity. One could use both kinds(galilei or lorentz), though galilei loses validity as the speed aproaches that of light.
Lorentz contraction is just one of the many effects of said tranformation.
Someone correct me if I’m talking shit.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
lorentz transformation = lorenz contraction?[/quote]
Not exactly.
The transformation is a way of “transforming” one set of coordinates from one inertia system, to another system, with a relative velocity. One could use both kinds(galilei or lorentz), though galilei loses validity as the speed aproaches that of light.
Lorentz contraction is just one of the many effects of said tranformation.
Someone correct me if I’m talking shit.[/quote]
i was thinking of using lorenz contraction in my presentation. along the lines of the ladder in the garage paradox.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
lorentz transformation = lorenz contraction?[/quote]
Not exactly.
The transformation is a way of “transforming” one set of coordinates from one inertia system, to another system, with a relative velocity. One could use both kinds(galilei or lorentz), though galilei loses validity as the speed aproaches that of light.
Lorentz contraction is just one of the many effects of said tranformation.
Someone correct me if I’m talking shit.[/quote]
No, that is correct. No need for scare quotes either, they are coordinate transformations between frames of reference.
[quote]asusvenus wrote:
haha, this is so well timed. I just started writing my report about, the galileitransformation, the lorentztransformation, and I’m being asked to derive E=mc^2. [/quote]
If you’re not clear on the derivation let me know. I’m not sure how you’re approaching it, but once you have the relativistic definition of momentum it’s just a bunch of integration and algebra.
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
i did write something similar to magnets in my paper, but i said that since planets orbit each other but don’t have magnetic attraction that there has to be a reason why they would do so and that the warping of space/time pretty much is the only explanation (even though we already know it exists)
for the e=mc2 thing i gave an example of how many gallons of water it would take to fuel all the cars in the US for a year (given last years fuel consumption stats) but gotta thank my boy Hakon for crunching the numbers lol. [/quote]
A cooler example of one use of e=mc^2 is nuclear bombs. The whole reason why nuclear bombs produce a lot of energy is because they directly convert the mass of the nucleus of atoms into… energy. The conversion is of course governed by e=mc^2.
Also, planets don’t orbit each other, they orbit the sun. Planets do have massive magnetic fields, so I would be careful how you talk about the magnetic properties of planets. As for what is the “only explanation” of gravitational attraction, people seemed to do ok with Newton before Einstein. It isn’t that general relativity is the only conceptual framework on the block, it’s that it’s a better conceptual framework than classical physics.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
i did write something similar to magnets in my paper, but i said that since planets orbit each other but don’t have magnetic attraction that there has to be a reason why they would do so and that the warping of space/time pretty much is the only explanation (even though we already know it exists)
for the e=mc2 thing i gave an example of how many gallons of water it would take to fuel all the cars in the US for a year (given last years fuel consumption stats) but gotta thank my boy Hakon for crunching the numbers lol. [/quote]
A cooler example of one use of e=mc^2 is nuclear bombs. The whole reason why nuclear bombs produce a lot of energy is because they directly convert the mass of the nucleus of atoms into… energy. The conversion is of course governed by e=mc^2.
Also, planets don’t orbit each other, they orbit the sun. Planets do have massive magnetic fields, so I would be careful how you talk about the magnetic properties of planets. As for what is the “only explanation” of gravitational attraction, people seemed to do ok with Newton before Einstein. It isn’t that general relativity is the only conceptual framework on the block, it’s that it’s a better conceptual framework than classical physics. [/quote]
lol my bad yeah planets orbit the sun and moons orbit planets wow thats like day 1 of class shit right there.
planets do have magnetic fields, but not all planets. mars for instance is a terrestrial planet that does not have a magnetic field. so obv magnetic fields have nothing to do with revolution as far as we think of magnetic attraction. it has to do with the sun putting a big ole pot hole so to speak in our solar system.
newtonian physics do work just fine for our planets orbit of the sun, although they don’t work near black holes due to the super dense mass
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
i did write something similar to magnets in my paper, but i said that since planets orbit each other but don’t have magnetic attraction that there has to be a reason why they would do so and that the warping of space/time pretty much is the only explanation (even though we already know it exists)
for the e=mc2 thing i gave an example of how many gallons of water it would take to fuel all the cars in the US for a year (given last years fuel consumption stats) but gotta thank my boy Hakon for crunching the numbers lol. [/quote]
A cooler example of one use of e=mc^2 is nuclear bombs. The whole reason why nuclear bombs produce a lot of energy is because they directly convert the mass of the nucleus of atoms into… energy. The conversion is of course governed by e=mc^2.
[/quote]
well yeah thats because nuclear bombs are inefficient in terms of energy conversion. they convert all the mass to energy in a fraction of a second whereas if you had the ability to control the speed you could use the energy in a safer and economical way that we currently don’t have the technology for although it prob won’t be more than 100 years before we do.
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
[quote]viveDel781 wrote:
i did write something similar to magnets in my paper, but i said that since planets orbit each other but don’t have magnetic attraction that there has to be a reason why they would do so and that the warping of space/time pretty much is the only explanation (even though we already know it exists)
for the e=mc2 thing i gave an example of how many gallons of water it would take to fuel all the cars in the US for a year (given last years fuel consumption stats) but gotta thank my boy Hakon for crunching the numbers lol. [/quote]
A cooler example of one use of e=mc^2 is nuclear bombs. The whole reason why nuclear bombs produce a lot of energy is because they directly convert the mass of the nucleus of atoms into… energy. The conversion is of course governed by e=mc^2.
[/quote]
well yeah thats because nuclear bombs are inefficient in terms of energy conversion. they convert all the mass to energy in a fraction of a second whereas if you had the ability to control the speed you could use the energy in a safer and economical way that we currently don’t have the technology for although it prob won’t be more than 100 years before we do.[/quote]
If you don’t already know about it, look up the ITER project.
5-10 minute presentation is really really short. If I was you I’d stick with a decent electronic poster. Make sure it flows well and separate it into sections. For such a short period of time you want to be talking rather than providing too much time wasting visual stimulus (powerpoints) to get all of your points across.
[quote]
planets do have magnetic fields, but not all planets. mars for instance is a terrestrial planet that does not have a magnetic field. so obv magnetic fields have nothing to do with revolution as far as we think of magnetic attraction. it has to do with the sun putting a big ole pot hole so to speak in our solar system.[/quote]
Sorry, I should be more direct. I was just being snarky before. The real reason why planetary magnetic fields have nothing to do with it is before they are relatively too weak. I’m actually not quite sure why you’re mentioning magnetism in your report. As far as I know no one ever seriously considered magnetism as serious candidate to explain planetary orbits. I might be wrong though.
[quote]
newtonian physics do work just fine for our planets orbit of the sun, although they don’t work near black holes due to the super dense mass[/quote]
I’m not sure if by ‘our planet’ you mean just earth, but Newtonian physics has problems describing planetary orbits exactly, and most notably cannot explain the perturbations of mercury’s orbit. What I meant by ‘just fine’ wasn’t that it explained it all the details, but that Newtonian physics gave us a workable conceptual framework in which to think of gravity.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
[quote]
planets do have magnetic fields, but not all planets. mars for instance is a terrestrial planet that does not have a magnetic field. so obv magnetic fields have nothing to do with revolution as far as we think of magnetic attraction. it has to do with the sun putting a big ole pot hole so to speak in our solar system.[/quote]
Sorry, I should be more direct. I was just being snarky before. The real reason why planetary magnetic fields have nothing to do with it is before they are relatively too weak. I’m actually not quite sure why you’re mentioning magnetism in your report. As far as I know no one ever seriously considered magnetism as serious candidate to explain planetary orbits. I might be wrong though.
[quote]
newtonian physics do work just fine for our planets orbit of the sun, although they don’t work near black holes due to the super dense mass[/quote]
I’m not sure if by ‘our planet’ you mean just earth, but Newtonian physics has problems describing planetary orbits exactly, and most notably cannot explain the perturbations of mercury’s orbit. What I meant by ‘just fine’ wasn’t that it explained it all the details, but that Newtonian physics gave us a workable conceptual framework in which to think of gravity. [/quote]
lol dude i never said magnets were thought to be an explanation, im just using magnetic attraction as an analogy to help describe orbit.
You should be careful about how you word things in your paper. This sounds more like causality than analogy.