• 11-30-13, 06:46 PM
It did! The point was that it is slowing, not what causes the slowing. The "force" between a dinosaur and the earth, ie what a scale...
17 replies | 323 view(s)
• 11-29-13, 05:52 PM
If, for example, the earth came from the sun and continues to get further from the sun as we speak, and as the earth gets further away from the sun...
17 replies | 323 view(s)
• 11-29-13, 12:27 PM
Just goes to show that a guy can have an MS in Applied Mathematics and still can't tell the difference between a piece and a hole. ...(wait, did I...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-28-13, 01:53 PM
Sure, you can divide a whole pie into 3 pieces, but what percent of the pie is each piece, and do the 3 percentages add to 100%? I assume you are...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-27-13, 03:32 PM
http://vitaminl.tv/video/885 :D
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 04:58 PM
I think it repeats because of the ... and the fact that it's referred to as a repeating decimal. What do you think the term "repeating" means? Why...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 04:13 PM
3/3=300%/3 1/3=100%/3 Do you know the difference between the two? Evidently you don't. 1.0=100% 3.0=300% You are saying 3/3=300%/3=100%,...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 03:51 PM
You miss the point of division completely! Dividing a whole (1.0) (100%) into 2 parts means there are TWO EQUAL PARTS of .5, or each part is 50%...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 03:16 PM
Tach, Do you agree that .9 (90%) of a whole means there is .1 (10%) of the whole not included in the 90%? How about .99? Do you agree that .99...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 02:52 PM
Well then explain to me why the .999...never includes the remainder, and yet you claim .999...=1. You fail to include a percentage of 1.0 in .999......
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 02:39 PM
According to Einstein I am correct! Are you trying to say that Einstein was wrong, that there really is an absolute truth?
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 02:27 PM
...but today was another day of ignorance for you. At this pace you will never understand it. I already told you the problem with your .999...=1, and...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 02:09 PM
Tach, Face it, when you divide 1 whole into: 2 pieces the pieces are 50% of what they used to be, but there are 2 of them. 4 pieces the pieces...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 01:49 PM
I see the problem. The problem is that the lunatic was living in Einstein's world where Einstein had him believing that there is no truth, that...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 01:38 PM
Wrong answer. The rules are different because your math is BS, so in order to create the illusion of correctness, math makes up some BS rule that...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 01:33 PM
Why are the rules different for infinity? Why does 1/2=.5, and .5*2=1.0, but when it comes to infinity you change the rules of being able to check my...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 01:24 PM
So then calculus must think undetermined* \infty=0, right???
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 01:18 PM
So 1/2=.5 and .5*2=1, but the same concept of multiplying .5*2 and equaling 1 doesn't apply to \frac{1}{\infty} =0 where 0 * \infty=1? Why is that?...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-26-13, 12:56 PM
(\frac{1}{\2}=.5) and (.5*2=1.0) (\frac{1}{\4}=.25) and (.25*4=1.0) (\frac{1}{\5}=.2) and (.2*5=1.0) So it appears to me, Tach, that...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-25-13, 05:46 AM
Are you trying to show that what is printed on paper, bound, and called a "book" is truth? Does that concept also apply to the Bible? The Bible is a...
440 replies | 8137 view(s)
• 11-22-13, 07:02 AM
Is it wrong of others to drop advanced technology into your hands? Like for instance, was it wrong of cell phone manufacturers to drop into your...
17 replies | 330 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 11:32 PM
You're hurtin' my feelings, Tach. I kind of like you even though you are dumber than a box of rocks. I kind of like how you always make a fool of...
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 05:40 PM
One whole pie can be divided into 4 equal area pieces of .25, accounting for 100% of the area of the pie. If the area is not totally accounted for...
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 05:22 PM
The need arises in the fact that you can divide a whole into 4 equal pieces of .25 and have it total 100%, but when you try it with 3 equal pieces...
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 05:17 PM
No, 99%+.333...+.333...+.333...=99.999...% You are fixating on the illusion that you can divide a whole into 3 equal parts, and you can't!
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 05:06 PM
100%-100%=0 In other words, 1-1=0 You have an area of pie. You are dividing it up evenly. The first division you make is .3 to each piece. Now...
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 04:56 PM
The problem with your diagram is that if 3 - .333...'s are being represented, then there is no color in the center. The center hasn't been occupied...
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 03:33 PM
So electrons can be inconvenienced? How much force does it take to inconvenience an electron? If the applied force created a net force which caused...
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 03:08 PM
2398574239-568743t-07895t68950gjil3gj6p' doesn't mean sh!t to me! Why don't your 3 pieces add up to 100%?? I'll tell you why, because you discarded...
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
• 11-21-13, 02:28 PM
33% + 1/3 of what? 1/3 of a percent? So 33.333...%, or .333... right?? So your 3 pieces add up as .333...+.333...+.333...=.999... Your 3 pieces...
1511 replies | 26840 view(s)
More Activity

### 10 Visitor Messages

1. [QUOTE=Neddy Bate;2852284]
Do you see the problem? [/QUOTE]

First of all, let me say that I do not have an agenda other than to discover the truth.
This should be clear from my postings. For example, I quoted the imminent Dr.
Wheeler, and no one even mentioned this in their reply [think "snipped], so I got no
credit for this credible citation. Instead, I get the reprimand that I "have an angenda."
To me, this is not playing fair. There are two sides to every story, even SR's, and both
should be heard if both are presented as credibly and as sincerely as possible, don't
you agree?
2. Before your [Neddy's] above, it may be helpful to clear up the "closing velocity" claim.

The first clue that the w = c - v case is not a closing velocity case lies in the simple
fact that Einstein stated explicitly that this was the speed of light relative to the
carriage.

Here is how Einstein put it:
"The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes
out smaller than c."
3. Here's another clue:
It is not a closing velocity because such velocities cannot conflict
(or even apparently conflict) with the principle of relativity.

And here is another clue:
The entire story takes place prior to special relativity and prior to
Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, and yet the embankment
observer got c for the speed of light. This cannot happen outside of
special relativity even with the use of closing velocities. Indeed, it
can only happen outside of SR if absolute time is involved (i.e. only
if truly or absolutely synchronous clocks are used).
4. Here is how Einstein put it:
"... the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment."
[_prior_ to Einstein synchronization, as I said]

Here is another clue:
No closing velocity case even apparently produces two laws. But Einstein
clearly stated that the observers found two different laws of physics.
(This was of course his reason for inventing relativity.)

Here is another clue:
No mere closing velocity could cause Einstein to discard absolute time.
5. Here is another clue:
No closing velocity case would require a complete revolution of physics,
with relative time replacing absolute time, but, as we saw, the final or
end result or conclusion of Einstein's story was the use of relative
simultaneity and the creation of relativity.

The only way to get rid of the (perceived) conflict with the principle of relativity
was to replace the absolutely synchronous clocks (on paper) with Einstein's
asynchronous clocks (relative time = relative simultaneity).

Here is how Einstein put this:
"... if we discard this assumption [absolute synchronization or absolute time],
then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the
principle of relativity disappears." http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

[QUOTE=Neddy Bate;2852284]
The clocks in the embankment frame measure the speed of light relative to the train to be c+v in one direction, and c-v in the other direction. [/quote]

No. At no point did Einstein say anything about the embankment
observer measuring the speed of light relative to the train. The only
thing that these observers did was to measure the one-way speed of
light relative to them [i.e., relative to their embankment], and, as
Einstein clearly stated, their result was c. (Ask yourself how this
could happen prior to SR.)
7. [QUOTE=Neddy Bate;2852284]
But how did they come to be synchronized in exactly the way they are? They were set by sending a round-trip light signal, thus ensuring the speed of light would be c in both directions. [/quote]

No, at this pre-SR point in the game, there was no Einsteinian definition of clock synchronization. Einstein was still using classical clocks, those which are truly or absolutely synchronous (on paper). This is absolute time, and it is what Einstein specifically discarded at the very end of his tale. Since it was only on paper, Einstein called it an assumption.
8. [QUOTE=Neddy Bate;2852284]
But that same synchronization method could be used on the train, and then the train would measure the speed of light relative to the embankment to be c+v in one direction, and c-v in the other direction. So, by your definition, the clocks on the train would be absolutely synchronized in that case. So now you have "absolutely synchronized" clocks on both the train and the embankment, and yet those clocks do not agree with each other [/quote]

As I just noted, Einstein "synchronization" did not exist at this point. SR did
not exist. SR's closing velocities did not exist. It's classical physics. And the
train observers did not measure light's speed relative to the embankment.
They simply measured light's one-way speed relative to themselves. Did
you not notice Einstein's query suggestion "Let us inquire about the velocity
of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage."
9. I do not understand your statement that by my definition, the clocks on the
train would be absolutely synchronized when synchronized per Einstein's
definition. Everyone knows that Einstein does not have (because he flatly
rejected it) absolute synchronization.

Absolutely synchronous clocks do not disagree, but can of course obtain
different spedific results, just as Einstein told us. His train observers got
c - v for the one-way speed of light, whereas his embankment observers
got only c.
10. Since the only way to obtain c for light's one-way speed prior to SR was
to use absolutely synchronous clocks while being at absolute rest in space,
this tells us that whenever the embankment observers got v for the speed
of the train that this was the train's absolute velocity. This is why the train
observers got c - v for light's one-way speed.

But, as I said, mathematically speaking, there were not two different
general laws, but only two different specific results, so there was
never any conflict (apparent or otherwise) with the PoR.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 10

#### Statistics

Total Posts
1,181
Posts Per Day
0.37
##### Visitor Messages
Total Messages
10
Most Recent Message
11-11-11 09:52 PM
##### General Information
Last Activity
08-08-13 02:33 AM
Join Date
04-01-05
Referrals
0

### 2 Friends

1. #### ash64449

Registered Senior Member