light is a measure of mass not velocity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by ada, Feb 27, 2001.

  1. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    W=.9+.9/(1+.9*.9/c^2)

    W=1.8/1.81=.9944

    I believe that was the answer I gave. What answer did you get?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    According to your post you calculated \(w(.8,1)\), no?

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    I also calculated (.1,.7) and (.4,4) after I gave my original answer for (.9,.9)

    I also posted some words which I'm not entirely certain you read.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    w(.1,.7) is not the same thing as w(.4,.4), so you should not be surprised that you get different results. The reason you are thrown by this is that you are still adding the speeds in Galilean fashion :

    0.1+0.7=0.4+0.4

    Neither is w(.9,.9) the same thing as w(.8,1), so you should expect the differences.

    Actually, it does but you need to understand what the formula really means.
     
  8. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Incorrect assumption. The only part i done Galilean was (0,.8).

    (.1,.7)=.8/(1+.1*.7/c^2)=.7477

    .7477-.058=.6897 I left it relatively easy to check my work.

    Correct they are different numbers. But their differences are the same number.
     
  9. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    That wasn't the point. It makes no sense to try to compare w(.9,.9) with w(.8,1).
    It makes no sense to compare w(.1,.7) with w(.4,.4) (as you tried).



    Totally irrelevant.
     
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Tach, you'll be asked a simple question, and you'll go into an intricate math derivation and never answer the simple question.

    Trust me now, if you were to just say yes or no, I'd believe you.
     
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    You would do the same thing posting as Trout.

    It's massive mathematical overkill.
     
  12. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    In order to learn physics you need to learn math, there is no way around it.
     
  13. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Yes, I know that. But a simple yes or no to a yes or no question would save a lot of time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    obviously because I found different numbers... But unlike most people who can blindly accept anything, my mind only accepts sound reasoning. Which we are yet to fully establish.
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    I'll go along with that.
    Although, given the evidence so far, it's rather hard to establish that your mind accepts sound reasoning.
    You seem to specialise in supposition, wishful thinking and woo-wooism.
     
  16. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    As explained, there is no simple "yes" or "no" since your question did not make sense. This is why you really need to learn math before you attempt to formulate the question. There is no way around it.
     
  17. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    What Dywyddyr said.
     
  18. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Really now? I guess this is what I get for asking simple questions. Nihil answers. My wishful thinking should hopefully inspire some actual thought. More than ill concieved, trite insults will arrouse. If your going to insult someone, try to make it true or atleast appear true out of some stretch of the immagination. That way they actually have something to work on or think they have something to work on.

    You can show (or not show) that you can work an equation, but what is really important is the reason behind the equation. The reason the equation was made in the first place. The reason you all seem to have forgotten...
     
  19. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You have received detailed answers. The problem is that you either can't or you refuse to understand.
     
  20. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Here is your problem. Tho you may have given the correct answer you have unfortunately left out any reason behind this assumption, which makes the whole of your argument incorrect.

     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,525
    Really.
    Exempli gratia: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66746&page=16

    It wasn't meant as an insult; it was an observation.

    And you appear to be capable of neither "working" the equation nor understanding the reasoning behind it.
     
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    This is the classical crackpot answer: "I can't follow your reasoning , therefore it is incorrect".

    I have already explained to you why there is no point in trying to compare w(.1,.7) with w(.4,.4). Do you understand why?
     
  23. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    More like: "I can't follow your reasoning, because you didn't give one, therefore it is incorrect". Which is more or less what I said the first time... Congratulations you have worked yourself "full circle" and forgotten the very reason for which you are arguing. Evidence.

    Incorrect assumption. You told me there is no point in trying to compare these and appear to be using that open statement as your "why".
     

Share This Page