light is a measure of mass not velocity

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

  1. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You don't know the basics, learn first, come back when you know what you are doing.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Wow. Misunderstandings, insults, and holier-than-thou posturings abound.
    NietzscheHimself, want to start afresh from post 59?

    Right.

    It's the same arithmetic difference in speed... but that only means that it's the same measured speed of separation.
    And we already know that we'll measure different speeds of separation in difference reference frames... so, is this a problem?

    I think we need to look deeper into why it doesn't logically sit right.

    So we have two electrons, measured to be moving at 0.4c in opposite directions (it doesn't actually matter whether we're at a central point or not... we could be anywhere).

    Now, we get all our gear moving at 0.3c parallel to the electron's motion, resynchronize our clocks, and measure them again.
    What do we find?

    Hint - it's not 0.1c and 0.4c.

    You might like to consider placing any insulters on ignore for a little while so we don't get sidetracked.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Not at all. I'm mainly looking for the physical reason we measure objects at such a high speed in this manner. Is it the nature of the universe, or does it have more to do with getting clocks to agree? Or possibly some other reason entirely.

    I ended up working it out last night actually. Thanks for taking the time to address the real problems of my absolute stupidity.

    .6797=.3+x/(1+.3x)

    Solve for x and we get .4914c
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    No you don't. If you mean \(0.6797 = 0.3 + \frac{x}{1+0.3x}\) then x = 0.428512. If you mean \(0.6797 = \frac{0.3 +x}{1+0.3x}\) then we get x = 0.476956. Mr Mathematica told me.

    /edit

    I've realised you made two mistakes, you meant \( \frac{0.3 +x}{1+0.3x}\) and you mean 0.6897. Then you get x=0.491369.
     
  8. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Your right. Memorizing five digit numbers for two seconds five days out of the week has affected my math and copying skills.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page