Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Motor Daddy, Apr 25, 2022.
No. It's just that I don't believe that my hand is the same size as the Moon.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ah, I see. It's that he wasn't fooled by your strawman. That's why you're mad.
Who said anything about being mad? That's YOUR strawman!
But keep trollin trollin trollin! You might catch a few.
I just explained to you that I am a non-believer that my hand is the same size as the Moon. I KNOW that my hand is not 2,159 blue sticks wide. My mind is sound enough to know that I am 238,900 mi from the Moon and my hand is not the same size as the Moon. In order to compare sizes I have to measure my hand with a ruler, and then go to the Moon and measure the Moon with a ruler. To claim that because I am 238,900 mi from the Moon that my hand is the same size as the Moon is psychotic.
Reported for lying.
Of course that would be crazy, but then that is the strawman you made. The real situation was not psychotic. Why do you always make a strawman? Oh that's right, you are trolling.
Is this where we get to report you for lying in the Maths & Physics forum??
To be clear: light travels through air at about 99.9% the speed through a vacuum. Hardly "much slower".
It's all about the "relative permativity" - with vacuum being 1. Speed of EM waves through a substance is given as C/relative-permativity. For air the relative permativity is about 1.0006.
Spreading more BS?
There is no lie in that post!
It is a FACT that light does not travel at 299,792,458 m/s in Earth's atmosphere. That is the majority of the statement, which is a FACT!
The rest of the statement is it is "much slower," which is a subjective term.
Even if I assume your claim is right that it travels 99.9% that speed in Earth's atmosphere, That means it is 299,792.458 m/s SLOWER.
299,792.458 m/s slower is MUCH SLOWER. To be specific, it is 299,792.458 m/s slower!
Let me give you a clue how much slower that really is. It is close to 300 THOUSAND meters per second slower!
It is 186.2824 MILES per second slower.
It is 670,616 MPH slower.
I don't know about you, but I honestly consider 670,616 MPH SLOWER to be MUCH SLOWER.
That is 670 THOUSAND MILES PER HOUR SLOWER!!!
But I have learned from your previous posts that you post BS and don't retract said BS, or apologize for posting said BS, so I should just ignore your BS!
So you think that if something slows down by 0.1% then it is going MUCH SLOWER. Ok, then you are not lying, it is just that you have a different perspective than a reasonable person. Seems about normal for you.
Right, I am not lying. So again, Sarkus is spreading BS! He is calling me a liar when in fact I am not lying! I await my apology and a warning from a Mod to Sarkus for flaming others by calling them liars, when in fact they are not lying!
But I won't hold my breath on that one.
Nope, but thanks for asking.
Yes, there was. Subjective term or not, 0.1% does not constitute "much". Hiding behind a word being subjective is simply dishonest, and peeling back that dishonesty reveals the lie for what it was: a lie.
Sure, but that wasn't what you lied about. Being "mostly" right doesn't stop you from having lied.
"much" does not cover from 0.000001% (or smaller) all the way up to 99.9999% (or higher). You're simply being intellectually dishonest.
Yes, which is not "much slower" than 299,792,458 m/s.
The "much" is always relative to that which is comparable to. Unless, of course, you don't intend to make sense, in which case all conversation and meaning is off the table.
While the specific value is correct, the "much" is not. It is not "much slower", as it is only 0.1% slower. That is not "much". As said, "much" is in relation to that which it is comparable to - i.e. the speed of light in a vacuum. A specific number is not, in isolation (i.e. without reference to something else) "much slower" than anything. So stop being a belligerent little brat, if you can.
Which is not "much" slower than something going 300 MILLION meters per second.
Well done, you can do the maths.
No, it isn't. It is, as stated, 0.1% slower. That is not "much slower" in anyone's book that uses the term honestly.
It is. Well done, you can do the maths. It is certainly slower, by 0.1%. That is not "much slower" at all. It is, for almost all practical purposes, a reduction that can be ignored. That is how it is not "much slower".
Stop lying. I have retracted what I originally said.
I'm certainly not apologising for the initial mistake, because you are a belligerent little brat who I simply don't respect enough to apologise to. Hope that is clear enough for you?
What is clear is that you just flamed me again and there is no Mod warning for your actions.
Reported for flaming other members.
Sarkus, I am ignoring you from this point forward. I will not be responding to you so do not expect a reply from me in any thread.
I'm not going on a Gish Gallop with you, Motor Daddy. I would like to resolve your basic problems before moving on to discussing more advanced topics. Otherwise, as I said previously, I fear I'll be wasting my time.
You've had more than 8 years during your time away from this forum to learn the basics of the special theory of relativity, yet it seems that you have made no effort to do that. For somebody who seems to like to discuss that theory and dispute it, it is an inexcusable omission. Anybody who honestly wanted to understanding this topic, good faith, would have made the effort. Based on past and current behaviours, I think you're more interested in trying to stir up arguments for their own sake than in learning anything.
Here's what I think. I think that you're unable to complete the simple task I set you - to solve a straightforward introductory problem using special relativity. Secondary school kids do this stuff, where I live. I even set out the procedure for you.
Maybe it's fear of embarrassment that's stopping you trying.
It's a cute move for you, of all people, to try to turn the tables and accuse me of troll-like behaviour - especially after I just issued you an official warning for behaviour that fits that bill. But it's also a sadly transparent ploy. I don't think many people here are going to buy what you're trying to sell them.
You can understand the difference between apparent size and real size, can't you? I explained it to you in my previous post. If you hold out your thumb and index finger when the moon is in the sky, it looks like you can grasp the entire moon between your fingers. It looks that way because you imagine something that is not actually the case: that the moon is right there, at your fingertips. In other words, it's a mistake of perspective.
Relativistic effects like time dilation and length contract are also matters of perspective. In that case, we're talking about the view you get when you travel past a thing at high speed, which turns out to be different to the view you get when you're at rest relative to the thing.
This explanation, by the way, is not for your benefit, so much, as you've said you're going to stick your metaphorical thumbs in your ears to block out my excellent teachings from now on. "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, la la la!" But it might help somebody else.
I'm not surprised. I'm onto your games. You're probably hoping you can hook some new fish on your troll line.
Bye, Motor Daddy!
What a pity. You could have learned a lot from me if you had ever bothered to really listen. Your loss.
This is factually incorrect. It's not much slower. The refractive index of air is very close to 1, for visible light.
Vacuum is where light travels at 29972458 m/s.
"Space" is not a substance. There's nothing about "space" that one can point to and claim "that thing is absolutely at rest".
Since when was 0.1% a large fraction?
In fact, if the refractive index of air is 1.0006 then the speed of light differs from its speed in vacuum by 179,768 m/s, which is a 0.06% difference - a bit over half of 0.1%.
But this whole attempt to define "much" to suit oneself is a silly trolling tactic anyway. There's no point wasting more time humouring Motor Daddy's pathetic attempt to make excuses for his latest error.
No, the point is you are being unreasonable by saying a decrease in speed of .1% is MUCH SLOWER.
So again it seems you are just trolling to get a rise in the members... imagine my surprise.
Oh, no! Say it's not true! Breakups are rarely pleasant things, but I guess I'll have to just accept your decision. Please know, though, that my life will be so much emptier without you in it, Motor Daddy. *sniff*
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.