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?
W=1.8/1.81=.9944
I believe that was the answer I gave. What answer did you get?
light is a measure of mass not velocity
- Thread starter ada
- Start date
According to your post you calculated $$w(.8,1)$$, no?
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.
I also posted some words which I'm not entirely certain you read.
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.
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.
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.
In order to learn physics you need to learn math, there is no way around it.
Yes, I know that. But a simple yes or no to a yes or no question would save a lot of time.
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.
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.
Yes, I know that. But a simple yes or no to a yes or no question would save a lot of time.
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.
What Dywyddyr said.
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...
You have received detailed answers. The problem is that you either can't or you refuse to understand.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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".