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?
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=.9944
W=(.8,1)
1+.8/(1+1*.8/c^2)=1
And w=(.1,.7) as opposed to w=(.4,.4)=.6896 is an even larger difference (.058) which is a fairly significant 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.
The reason you are thrown by this is that you are still adding the speeds in Galilean fashion :
Neither is w(.9,.9) the same thing as w(.8,1), so you should expect the differences.
Incorrect assumption. The only part i done Galilean was (0,.8).
Correct they are different numbers. But their differences are the same number.
Tach, you'll be asked a simple question, and you'll go into an intricate math derivation and never answer the simple question.
Trust me now, if you were to just say yes or no, I'd believe you.
In order to learn physics you need to learn math, there is no way around it.
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).
I'll go along with that.my mind only accepts sound reasoning. Which we are yet to fully establish.
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.
Really now? I guess this is what I get for asking simple questions. Nihil answers.
It makes no sense to compare w(.1,.7) with w(.4,.4) (as you tried).
Really.Really now?
It wasn't meant as an insult; it was an observation.If your going to insult someone, try to make it true or atleast appear true out of some stretch of the immagination.
And you appear to be capable of neither "working" the equation nor understanding the reasoning behind it.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...
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.
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?