Relative Velocity Measurement – Frame and photon

We're done.
I've got better things to do than teach elementary logic and algebra to an uneducated arrogant know-it-all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is totally false and it is difficult without using logic.

When M and M' co-locate A and B are struck.

When M and M' co-locate A' and B' are co-locate with A and B.

You agreed to this logic.


Therefore, when M and M' co-locate, A' and B' are struck.

This is very basic elementary logic. I can't understand why this is so difficult.

See, your logic contended light hit at B before M and M' co-located from the view of M' stationary.

But, we must not forget the condition that you agreed to:
When M and M' co-locate A and B are struck.

Therefore, when M and M' co-locate, they will disagree on the light cone.
M will contend light is just hit at B and M' will contend light has taken over positions on the x-axis coming toward M and M'.
You violate your own light cone logic.

I will draw a picture.

M' view - since light took off prior to the co-location of M and M', then light is already moving down the x-axis when M and M' co-locate. [This is your contention]
A'-------------------------------M'-----------------------------<<<<<B'

M view - light emits at B when M and M' co-locate.
A--------------------------------M--------------------------------------B

This is called logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not saying this in any kind of a mean-hearted way at all. I say this in the most loving and friendly way a human can say something.

You need professional medical evaluation and medication. I pray to Lord God at this minute that He send healing spirits to you to bless you with every healing of mind and body. Amen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Given your attitude and obvious dislike of anyone who dares correct you I seriously doubt your sincerity.

Ah I see you're unable to justify your claims and retort anything I've said so we've moved onto the "You're wacko" thing. A few problems with that.

First and foremost the claim its possible assess someone's mental status by reading their posts is a pretty big one.

Secondly, you are not a trained professional and thus the claim you can accurately evaluate anyone's mental status is even more dubious.

Thirdly, the posts I've made are entirely coherent and respond to your points directly. I explain why clinging to a decades old book as your own source of information isn't too wise. I explained that even very clever physicists can write things which are mistaken. And I commented, not for the first time, you haven't provided any justifications for your claims or shown you even understand relativity. None of these things are signs of mental instability, unless you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is not all there. Which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest given your unjustified inflated opinion of your knowledge.

Fourthly, why are you the only person to believe its so obvious I need some kind of help. I spent pages and pages discussing Jack_'s relativity question and provided a sufficiently coherent discussion for him to understand his mistake.

But please feel free to explain precisely how my post is evidence of being in need of a psych evaluation. Because if you can't it might seem like all you're doing is throwing ad homs because you can't justify your claims or retort my criticisms.

See this just seems like you're trolling. You've gone from ignorant smug jackass to some pious person who only wants to help. You really must be desperate if that's all you can come up with in response to my posts. Is it really so hard to accept it when someone knows something better than you?