light is a measure of mass not velocity

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

  1. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Truly awesome... a link that doesn't work.

    Keep watching. Maybe I will dance. Call it whatever your deluded mind tells you to call it. From my experience with actual people (personal and observational) it seems when they speak out harshly against someone it is in the intent to maim the soul. Not for constructive criticism.

    Since you have obviously found so many errors in my math would you mind pointing them out to my face and insulting me in a demeaning manner?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    Corrected:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66746&highlight=ruthless logic&page=16

    yeah well, as we have seen, you're not that good at putting 2 and 2 together.

    Tach has shown you the correct maths. But I have little objection to insulting to you if you so desire.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Let's try something really simple, using your attempt at comparing w(.1,.7) with w(.4,.4):

    Case1. Wrt reference frame A you have an object B flying at -0.1c and a second object C flying at +0.7 c. What is the speed of C wrt B?

    Case2. Wrt reference frame A you have an object B flying at -0.4c and a second object C flying at +0.4 c. What is the speed of C wrt B?

    Are the two above cases comparable? If yes, why ? If no, why not?
    Are the two above cases identical? If yes, why? If no, why not?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Yes. We have been comparing them for quite some time now.

    No. The universe is curved which gives a maximum value of c from any reference point. The variations of the numbers are a result of the nature of the curvature of the universe.
     
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Not "we", YOU.



    Total non-sequitur. You pretend to know what you are talking about, yet it is clear that you have no clue. Bye.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
  10. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Refuting the fact that you can look at two numbers and note a difference does not make it true. Even here you lack evidence.


    Beats giving no explanation whatsoever.
     
  11. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,645
    Still doesn't agree with your statement.
     
  13. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe my statement following that particular set of math was... and I quote, "...."

    Which of course you should have immediately assumed to mean a space ship with its headlights on, seeing as it is the only impossible solution that works.
     
  14. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    no, it doesn't
    you're clueless
     
  15. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    And I did the correct math to get into this clueless state. (obviously not for the 2c part as it was meant to be a joke) I thought you gave up and left seeing as I'm a lost cause and you don't quite know the exact input to bypass my cluelessness. Known as evidence.
     
  16. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Nope, you did the clueless math. You did not get into the clueless state, you are in a perpetual clueless state.
     
  17. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Crying out for help through all these insults, wishing for nothing more than understanding. Receiving (as I said earlier) nihil coherent applications to my quandries.
     
  18. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You need to get your fingers out of your ears in order to understand. You also need to engage brain. Try it for a change, the information is there.
     
  19. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Nope. Please try again later.

    And w=(.1,.7)= .7477as opposed to w=(.4,.4)=.6896 is an even larger difference (.058) which is a fairly significant difference. (approx. 17,400,000 m/s difference)

    It just doesn't logically sit right because we could actually be moving .3 towards an object and read a different speed as a point directly centered between them. Which of course is completely irrelevant to the speed the object itself observes as the speed of the other object (.8)

    What causes these three different perspectives to differ when they are based off the same two objects?
     
  20. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Of course it is since there is no correlation between the two scenarios. Something that you repeatedly fail to understand.


    Naturally, in SR speed is frame dependent. The fact that you don't know that is your problem.




    What is "the speed of the object itself"? Speed is all relative.


    Frame-dependence. Take a class in basic relativity.
     
  21. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    So you are saying we can pick three different points on a line between two objects and come up with three different answers for the total speed between the two objects?
     
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    What you tried to pick is not three different points, it is three MOVING frames. LEARN.
     
  23. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Why didn't you say that yesterday? You probably could have saved yourself some headache... Can you duplicate what my sad example attempted to do?

    I'm sure it works, I just obviously don't know how to set it up properly...
     

Share This Page