Science > Physics > The speed of light can not be physically constant to all
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Spaceman" |
| Date: |
14 Mar 2006 02:13:48 PM |
| Object: |
The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
The speed of light, 186,000 miles per second (rounded off of course),
can not be constant to all observers simply because it is a speed.
There is no such thing as a speed that can be constant to all observers
For such a speed to be constant to all observers it would have to
be able to ignore and adjust (instantly) to the relative motion of all
things.
c is not a constant.
It is a speed and all speeds are variable to a relative observer.
.
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
15 Mar 2006 01:41:13 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kqOdnRwuTIJ-9oXZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
The observer measuring the photons as he moved towards the emitter would
determine all were at c.
No,
If such was true, he would still measure a 1 second pulse time.
No, two different things.
Please define why he can measure a shorter pulse time while
the photons still pass by at c.
A one second pulse consists of photons spread over 300,000 km,
traveling at 300,000 km/sec.
Take those same photons and spread them over 150,000 km,
but still traveling at 300,000 km/sec, and you only have
a 0.5 sec pulse. Same photons, same speed, different
arrangement in space.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
15 Mar 2006 01:59:51 PM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142451673.691293.287880@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kqOdnRwuTIJ-9oXZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
The observer measuring the photons as he moved towards the emitter
would
determine all were at c.
No,
If such was true, he would still measure a 1 second pulse time.
No, two different things.
Not at all.
If the speed is always c to all, the flight time passing by objects
should also be constant to all.
Please define why he can measure a shorter pulse time while
the photons still pass by at c.
A one second pulse consists of photons spread over 300,000 km,
traveling at 300,000 km/sec.
Take those same photons and spread them over 150,000 km,
but still traveling at 300,000 km/sec, and you only have
a 0.5 sec pulse. Same photons, same speed, different
arrangement in space.
Same speed wrt the source, relative speed of 1.5 c with
reference to the observer measuring the shorter pulse time
or he would not measure a shorter pulse at all.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
15 Mar 2006 03:54:05 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f-qdnRG5Qf5g1YXZRVnysw@pipex.net...
Do you have a list of sentences you have to get in each post or do you
actually type this crap in each time?
You will probably get more sense from this:
www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "QCD Apprentice" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
15 Mar 2006 04:01:47 PM |
|
|
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f-qdnRG5Qf5g1YXZRVnysw@pipex.net...
Do you have a list of sentences you have to get in each post or do you
actually type this crap in each time?
You will probably get more sense from this:
www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
I think the spaceman emulator needs to be updated, actually.
It doesn't sound quite like him anymore. He's moved on to
different idioms.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
14 Mar 2006 04:46:42 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:3vWdnTLbNYtovorZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
| The speed of light, 186,000 miles per second (rounded off of course),
| can not be constant to all observers simply because it is a speed.
| There is no such thing as a speed that can be constant to all observers
| For such a speed to be constant to all observers it would have to
| be able to ignore and adjust (instantly) to the relative motion of all
| things.
|
| c is not a constant.
| It is a speed and all speeds are variable to a relative observer.
|
Quite correct. So you conclude that
a) Einstein was an idiot ?
b) Einstein was a huckster ?
c) Who cares, he was wrong anyway?
d) All of the above?
e) None of the above?
Now that you've passed the SAT, what does "relative" mean
and is the speed of light constant with respect to the source?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The speed of light can not be physically constant to all |
14 Mar 2006 04:54:36 PM |
|
|
"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:mJHRf.13661$zk4.7999@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:3vWdnTLbNYtovorZRVn-gg@comcast.com...
| The speed of light, 186,000 miles per second (rounded off of course),
| can not be constant to all observers simply because it is a speed.
| There is no such thing as a speed that can be constant to all observers
| For such a speed to be constant to all observers it would have to
| be able to ignore and adjust (instantly) to the relative motion of all
| things.
|
| c is not a constant.
| It is a speed and all speeds are variable to a relative observer.
|
Quite correct. So you conclude that
a) Einstein was an idiot ?
Not completely,
He was smart enough to fool all his "peers"
but.. that just means most of his "peers" were idiots.
:)
b) Einstein was a huckster ?
Yes.
c) Who cares, he was wrong anyway?
Yes.
d) All of the above?
Sort of.
:)
e) None of the above?
No, not at all.
:)
Now that you've passed the SAT, what does "relative" mean
and is the speed of light constant with respect to the source?
Androcles.
Relative means with relation (respect) to other objects.
and
The speed of light can not be constant with respect to
the source to all observers..
It is a physical impossiblity.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 12:16:21 AM |
|
|
Hi Spaceman, It's an imperical fact that the laws of physics,
including the speed of light in an _Ideal_ vacuum,
are the same no matter when or where it has been measured,
how fast one was moving, or the gravitational acceleration.
Best theory says that's also true for unmeasured places and times.
Q. Do you have a better theory ?
A. No, of course you don't... or you'd be talking about that instead.
GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws,
e.g. the GPS constallation, high energy physics, Riess' work and WMAP.
See: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology and Map.GSFC.Nasa.GOV
Where relativity obviously fails is the fact that
no place in nature could _Ever_ have infinite density,
because infinite gravitational acceleration implies infinite Unruh radiation,
so it'd have to emit more energy then exists in the cosmos.
Likewise, no place could ever have a perfect vauum,
because it takes energy to maintain a vacuum,
so it'd consume more energy than exists in the cosmos.
So there never was a start to the big bang, I posit,
instead, entropy is merely a property of mass-energy,
and everything has just always been, and will always be, dissipating.
I call that Space_Time_Entropy,
where entropy is the so-called cosmic time, a fifth _Spatial_ dimension.
Although the spatial nature of time is easily observed at cosmic scales,
smaller scales introduce many unknowns, making it seem directional to us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 09:31:10 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_19_yWt6@Cotse.NET...
Hi Spaceman, It's an imperical fact that the laws of physics,
including the speed of light in an _Ideal_ vacuum,
are the same no matter when or where it has been measured,
how fast one was moving, or the gravitational acceleration.
Dear Jeff,
It is not an empirical fact,
It is a mathematic trick pulled on science.
a speed can not be "constant" to all and if it truly
were you would not need a math transform to prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 12:56:57 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:9K6dnbyQN90kV4PZRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_19_yWt6@Cotse.NET...
Hi Spaceman, It's an imperical fact that the laws of physics,
including the speed of light in an _Ideal_ vacuum,
are the same no matter when or where it has been measured,
how fast one was moving, or the gravitational acceleration.
Dear Jeff,
It is not an empirical fact,
It is a mathematic trick pulled on science.
a speed can not be "constant" to all and if it truly
were you would not need a math transform to prove it.
Dear Spaceman,
Can I suggest something which may assist your understanding. Chapter 3 of
"Great Ideas in Physics" (Alan Lightman, published by McGraw-Hill, ISBN
0071357386) which explains in great detail, and simplistic terminology the
evolution of the theories you want to disprove and, importantly, it explains
(providing experimental examples) the issues with the "approximation" of
relative speed for low velocity objects (eg. cars) and why this doesn't work
at increased velocities.
It may help you fill in the blanks in a few areas of your theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 01:03:59 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdncfKLfljZ4PZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
Can I suggest something which may assist your understanding. Chapter 3 of
"Great Ideas in Physics" (Alan Lightman, published by McGraw-Hill, ISBN
0071357386) which explains in great detail, and simplistic terminology the
evolution of the theories you want to disprove and, importantly, it
explains (providing experimental examples) the issues with the
"approximation" of relative speed for low velocity objects (eg. cars) and
why this doesn't work at increased velocities.
It may help you fill in the blanks in a few areas of your theory.
Dear T Wake,
I suggest you learn how to use basic algebra all over again.
For some reason you think it does not work correctly.
I find it funny you can not grasp that miles add just like
coins.
and distance is not "relative" and timing things properly
is also not done with relative times.
I can see we will never see you timing dragster events
since you somehow have forgotten what clocks are for
to begin with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 05:36:04 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:loqdnaVpwcgGYYPZRVn-rA@comcast.com:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdncfKLfljZ4PZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
Can I suggest something which may assist your understanding. Chapter 3
of "Great Ideas in Physics" (Alan Lightman, published by McGraw-Hill,
ISBN 0071357386) which explains in great detail, and simplistic
terminology the evolution of the theories you want to disprove and,
importantly, it explains (providing experimental examples) the issues
with the "approximation" of relative speed for low velocity objects
(eg. cars) and why this doesn't work at increased velocities.
It may help you fill in the blanks in a few areas of your theory.
Dear T Wake,
I suggest you learn how to use basic algebra all over again.
For some reason you think it does not work correctly.
That's your problem. You need a bit more than basic arithmetic to
comprehend relativity. Try taking a course in differential geometry and you
might start to get the gist of things.
Klazmon.
I find it funny you can not grasp that miles add just like
coins.
and distance is not "relative" and timing things properly
is also not done with relative times.
I can see we will never see you timing dragster events
since you somehow have forgotten what clocks are for
to begin with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 05:41:58 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns978D7603BE9BBKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:loqdnaVpwcgGYYPZRVn-rA@comcast.com:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdncfKLfljZ4PZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
Can I suggest something which may assist your understanding. Chapter 3
of "Great Ideas in Physics" (Alan Lightman, published by McGraw-Hill,
ISBN 0071357386) which explains in great detail, and simplistic
terminology the evolution of the theories you want to disprove and,
importantly, it explains (providing experimental examples) the issues
with the "approximation" of relative speed for low velocity objects
(eg. cars) and why this doesn't work at increased velocities.
It may help you fill in the blanks in a few areas of your theory.
Dear T Wake,
I suggest you learn how to use basic algebra all over again.
For some reason you think it does not work correctly.
That's your problem. You need a bit more than basic arithmetic to
comprehend relativity.
No,
It is not a problem at all,
I understand other math just fine,
I also understand where the "other" math of relativity
is in fact conflicting with the truth of the basic math
I know works fine in the cases I am talking about.
Try taking a course in differential geometry and you
might start to get the gist of things.
Try thinking that relativity could be wrong ,
then actually try to think about why it can't be right.
After you do such things, you might actually think like I do also
and find such problems I have found.
But until you do such, you have not "thought" about relativity at all
and merely have "accepted it without yourself doing any proof
at all.
If you have not done proof for yourself, you are as good as
a person that read the bible and says it is true simply because
they read about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 05:48:35 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:sMadnXnYKZFeoILZRVn-pw@comcast.com...
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns978D7603BE9BBKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:loqdnaVpwcgGYYPZRVn-rA@comcast.com:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdncfKLfljZ4PZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
Can I suggest something which may assist your understanding. Chapter 3
of "Great Ideas in Physics" (Alan Lightman, published by McGraw-Hill,
ISBN 0071357386) which explains in great detail, and simplistic
terminology the evolution of the theories you want to disprove and,
importantly, it explains (providing experimental examples) the issues
with the "approximation" of relative speed for low velocity objects
(eg. cars) and why this doesn't work at increased velocities.
It may help you fill in the blanks in a few areas of your theory.
Dear T Wake,
I suggest you learn how to use basic algebra all over again.
For some reason you think it does not work correctly.
That's your problem. You need a bit more than basic arithmetic to
comprehend relativity.
No,
It is not a problem at all,
I understand other math just fine,
I also understand where the "other" math of relativity
is in fact conflicting with the truth of the basic math
I know works fine in the cases I am talking about.
You assume the basic, childlike knowledge you have in inherently more
"superior" to anything else. Instead of asking yourself why things other
than 1+1 were ever developed you sit there, stamp your feet and demand
everything be solved as 1+1.
You are priceless. I will be sorry when my next job starts and I no longer
have the time to learn from you. (Not about physics obviously, but about the
psychosis that people can undergo)
Try taking a course in differential geometry and you
might start to get the gist of things.
Try thinking that relativity could be wrong ,
People have thought that for years - lots of effort has been put into
proving it wrong. None have succeded so far.
Maybe if you spent less time on USENET making a fool of yourself, and more
time carrying out experiments you could be the first one to do it.
However, I doubt you ever could.
then actually try to think about why it can't be right.
After you do such things, you might actually think like I do also
Only after serious head injury.
and find such problems I have found.
You have no idea what problems you have found. You know so little, you cant
even identify where progress could be made.
Better still, your (ahem) postulates create even more problems than they
will ever hope to solve.
But until you do such, you have not "thought" about relativity at all
and merely have "accepted it without yourself doing any proof
at all.
Hahaha. You have no concept of proof and no idea what happens in an
educational establishment.
If you have not done proof for yourself, you are as good as
a person that read the bible and says it is true simply because
they read about it.
You have not done a single experiment yourself. Your proof lies in your
adherence to the basic mathematics you learned at age 9.
Priceless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 05:57:42 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:foWdnSRQ7-HFooLZRVny1A@pipex.net...
You assume the basic, childlike knowledge you have in inherently more
"superior" to anything else. Instead of asking yourself why things other
than 1+1 were ever developed you sit there, stamp your feet and demand
everything be solved as 1+1.
You are priceless. I will be sorry when my next job starts and I no longer
have the time to learn from you. (Not about physics obviously, but about
the psychosis that people can undergo)
Nice insult, since you can't attack the post.
Thanks for proof of your ignorance and arrogance that is occuring
simultaneously in your mind.
LOL
People have thought that for years - lots of effort has been put into
proving it wrong. None have succeded so far.
Maybe if you spent less time on USENET making a fool of yourself, and more
time carrying out experiments you could be the first one to do it.
Maybe if you did such, you would get a clue as to why I am back from
doing stuff that you only wish you could comprehend.
LOL
Only after serious head injury.
I think you need something like that to fix that warped spacetime
pudding you have up there right now.
You have no idea what problems you have found.
Actually, I have some great ideas of what problems I have found,
It is pretty sad that the pudding in your head that you call a brain
can not grasp such simple facts that hurt relativity.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
21 Mar 2006 12:50:49 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:faWdnbzKlqjs3ILZRVn-iA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:foWdnSRQ7-HFooLZRVny1A@pipex.net...
You assume the basic, childlike knowledge you have in inherently more
"superior" to anything else. Instead of asking yourself why things other
than 1+1 were ever developed you sit there, stamp your feet and demand
everything be solved as 1+1.
You are priceless. I will be sorry when my next job starts and I no
longer have the time to learn from you. (Not about physics obviously, but
about the psychosis that people can undergo)
Nice insult, since you can't attack the post.
I will add, to your abysmal mathematics, an inability to read and
comprehend. I did attack your post. Then I attacked you. It was in sequence.
Thanks for proof of your ignorance and arrogance that is occuring
simultaneously in your mind.
Ok, so here you are not attacking my post you are attacking me. Exactly what
you accuse me of.
No change there.
People have thought that for years - lots of effort has been put into
proving it wrong. None have succeded so far.
Maybe if you spent less time on USENET making a fool of yourself, and
more time carrying out experiments you could be the first one to do it.
Maybe if you did such, you would get a clue as to why I am back from
doing stuff that you only wish you could comprehend.
Whatever.
There is a difference between the experiments you do before you wake up and
genuine ones which take place.
Making tents under the blankets in the morning is not an experiment.
Only after serious head injury.
I think you need something like that to fix that warped spacetime
pudding you have up there right now.
What are you talking about here?
Have you got a grudge against someone in particular? It appears your posts
are not so much directed against the people you are replying to but some
wierd concept you have about other people's opinions.
You have no idea what problems you have found.
Actually, I have some great ideas of what problems I have found,
It is pretty sad that the pudding in your head that you call a brain
can not grasp such simple facts that hurt relativity.
Another example of you having nothing to support your claims so you revert
to your "offend as much as possible" hoping it will distract.
You havent bothered to learn what parts of SR/GR are experimentally solid,
this means you dont know where to investigate to increase the sum total of
human knowledge.
You keep trying to re-invent the wheel. I am sure some one believes you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
07 Apr 2006 10:20:39 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:
Another example of you having nothing to support your claims so you revert
to your "offend as much as possible" hoping it will distract.
You havent bothered to learn what parts of SR/GR are experimentally solid,
this means you dont know where to investigate to increase the sum total of
human knowledge.
You keep trying to re-invent the wheel. I am sure some one believes you.
Re post date. QG wrote I think water is your angular momentum
transferred between the Opportunity in the of time presumably,
it would result is and the guilds a significant event horizons.
Facts: on something like neutrinos oscillate from the comets
NASA's space where universal creator, of my reading anything you
Must be trained for the troupe but I'll dumb *****. Powys, John
(Dover). It as.
That proves nothing, against are numerous On real world.
Please! Venus ranging and the data, showing you got a plant
menacing about believed. As handsome maudlin, and the one from
Pe of course; of the blue pencils On April First not he was
scum. Greenhouse Gas; out in earlier: versions of the are
guided by The pattern of tea. If they weare pay his grace takes
A mess, of the cosmos and live of little tautology, from all
you know to understand that show skin, occurs at all obviously
occurs in bad guys he went, through the someone earned Her name
a conflict with that, you can't show in the Swify liars
attacked I mean to Be vile esteem'd, when looking at The earth.
Some at the rest of astronomy.
His conscience, known, pictures of money to save Wabnigga's
small plastic, Art is no less a couple times they're free to
use: to Wilson's lattice might feel free to Nearby if it rest
anything else we may not folgenden Prinzip der Waals. I will
change The bizarre Scapegoat they Are were any responsible?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 06:33:03 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:sMadnXnYKZFeoILZRVn-
pw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns978D7603BE9BBKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:loqdnaVpwcgGYYPZRVn-rA@comcast.com:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdncfKLfljZ4PZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
Can I suggest something which may assist your understanding. Chapter 3
of "Great Ideas in Physics" (Alan Lightman, published by McGraw-Hill,
ISBN 0071357386) which explains in great detail, and simplistic
terminology the evolution of the theories you want to disprove and,
importantly, it explains (providing experimental examples) the issues
with the "approximation" of relative speed for low velocity objects
(eg. cars) and why this doesn't work at increased velocities.
It may help you fill in the blanks in a few areas of your theory.
Dear T Wake,
I suggest you learn how to use basic algebra all over again.
For some reason you think it does not work correctly.
That's your problem. You need a bit more than basic arithmetic to
comprehend relativity.
No,
It is not a problem at all,
I understand other math just fine,
I also understand where the "other" math of relativity
is in fact conflicting with the truth of the basic math
I know works fine in the cases I am talking about.
You haven't demonstrated that you understand even basic mathematics.
Try taking a course in differential geometry and you
might start to get the gist of things.
Try thinking that relativity could be wrong ,
then actually try to think about why it can't be right.
So you are too scared to attempt to learn differential geometry. Too bad.
Klazmon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 06:51:41 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns978D7FAD12CAAKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in news:sMadnXnYKZFeoILZRVn-
pw@comcast.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns978D7603BE9BBKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in
news:loqdnaVpwcgGYYPZRVn-rA@comcast.com:
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdncfKLfljZ4PZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
Can I suggest something which may assist your understanding. Chapter 3
of "Great Ideas in Physics" (Alan Lightman, published by McGraw-Hill,
ISBN 0071357386) which explains in great detail, and simplistic
terminology the evolution of the theories you want to disprove and,
importantly, it explains (providing experimental examples) the issues
with the "approximation" of relative speed for low velocity objects
(eg. cars) and why this doesn't work at increased velocities.
It may help you fill in the blanks in a few areas of your theory.
Dear T Wake,
I suggest you learn how to use basic algebra all over again.
For some reason you think it does not work correctly.
That's your problem. You need a bit more than basic arithmetic to
comprehend relativity.
No,
It is not a problem at all,
I understand other math just fine,
I also understand where the "other" math of relativity
is in fact conflicting with the truth of the basic math
I know works fine in the cases I am talking about.
You haven't demonstrated that you understand even basic mathematics.
You have not demonstrated that I do not understand it.
Apparently you think adding miles is the incorrect way to
"add" miles huh?
So you are too scared to attempt to learn differential geometry. Too bad.
Not scared at all.
But I also know I do not need such to understand relativity nor
physics itself.
It is too bad you think you do actually need such to grasp relativity
or any physics at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
21 Mar 2006 12:55:40 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:UKydncT1MZaF04LZRVn-rA@comcast.com...
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns978D7FAD12CAAKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
You haven't demonstrated that you understand even basic mathematics.
You have not demonstrated that I do not understand it.
Once more the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
Apparently you think adding miles is the incorrect way to
"add" miles huh?
You dont understand combining velocity. That is plain for all to see.
So you are too scared to attempt to learn differential geometry. Too bad.
Not scared at all.
But I also know I do not need such to understand relativity nor
physics itself.
Ok, can you tell us how far a muon (lifespan 2.2x10^-6s) moving at 0.99998c
can travel?
It is too bad you think you do actually need such to grasp relativity
or any physics at all.
Yawn.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 02:31:50 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:loqdnaVpwcgGYYPZRVn-rA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:upOdncfKLfljZ4PZRVnysQ@pipex.net...
Can I suggest something which may assist your understanding. Chapter 3 of
"Great Ideas in Physics" (Alan Lightman, published by McGraw-Hill, ISBN
0071357386) which explains in great detail, and simplistic terminology
the evolution of the theories you want to disprove and, importantly, it
explains (providing experimental examples) the issues with the
"approximation" of relative speed for low velocity objects (eg. cars) and
why this doesn't work at increased velocities.
It may help you fill in the blanks in a few areas of your theory.
Dear T Wake,
I suggest you learn how to use basic algebra all over again.
For some reason you think it does not work correctly.
Not true. I think it works fine. I also know when and where to apply it. I
am more than aware of the limitations of "basic" approach and the inherent
errors when using an "approximation" system.
Sadly, the same is not true for you.
Seriously, read the book. It will help you.
I find it funny you can not grasp that miles add just like
coins.
Miles are miles. Speeds are speeds. You want to add one as if it was the
other.
and distance is not "relative" and timing things properly
is also not done with relative times.
What is your absolute frame to determine these things?
I can see we will never see you timing dragster events
since you somehow have forgotten what clocks are for
to begin with.
It is funny that you try to bring in these analogies. At last you have one I
have never done.
Sadly, despite your claims, we will never see you engaging in any form of
science. As a mechanic, it is pretty much guaranteed you will never progress
beyond the most basic environment you can exist in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 03:10:28 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QeOdnS0dJ82hjILZRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
Not true. I think it works fine. I also know when and where to apply it.
No,
Actually you don't.
You are truly addition illiterate.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: GR is ultra high tech compared to Newton's laws. |
20 Mar 2006 03:19:42 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:JeSdnfge643dh4LZRVn-uA@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QeOdnS0dJ82hjILZRVnyrQ@pipex.net...
Not true. I think it works fine. I also know when and where to apply it.
No,
Actually you don't.
Actually I do.
You are truly addition illiterate.
You are illiterate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Technology has matured since Newton, live with it. |
21 Mar 2006 01:51:40 AM |
|
|
Hi Spaceman, GR and SR are ultra high tech.
You can't do it in your backyard, you need things like GPS constellations,
particle accelerators and high precison orbiting telescopes.
Technology has matured since Newton, live with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Technology has matured since Newton, live with it. |
22 Mar 2006 02:01:38 AM |
|
|
Its jeff ,,,on seattles reif,,
did ya move =BF
or still fighting da landlady =BF
Nice cruise ship fer sale dude.
3 mil one fer 1 mil one fer 4 mil pick one .
at shiprepo.com
get that 380 cabin rorro rent 380 rooms out for 250 or what eve it is
you pay .
open up the bars and restorants .
wadaya think jeffie ?
click..
95 grand month in rent.
make yer own electric exc.
1.4 mil year get 48 months
3 mil / 48 months is 62500 plus 3000.
rent the restorant n bar out.
rent the 300 foot garrage out as a whear house.
take the 500 cabin for 1 mil cruise ship.
1966 but nice.
that id made a ***** of a renter fo a land lover like you.
I having a high risee biult on a barge for nyny.
just a 230 feet tall 40 x 40
with parking in the hull .
a park on the open deck .
rent is 5500 per deck .
100 grand month
cost 4 mil .
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The court system's priorites are nothing short of demonic. |
22 Mar 2006 07:28:00 AM |
|
|
Hi T.J.,
I'm 46 years old, and programming computers is the only job I've ever held.
It's paid my rent every month since 1981.
I know nothing about being a landlord,
and it doesn't really interest me... sorry.
You asked me: Did ya move ¿ or are you still fighting da landlady ¿
After 58 months of on-time payments to Lina, my landlady,
she signed me up tp a two month lease at the end of November
which gave her the right to evict me for no reason,
....so long as she did't cash February's check.
I was incorrectly told the lease would _Automatically_ become month-to-month.
She almost took that check, but the renter adjacent to me came out
and started making up outlandish lies.
That's what happens when you live with an ultra cute 18 year old girl
that looks much younger... everyone is mad about not being able to fucker,
including the husband of my landlord.
So I was in default at that point,
now my credit record is blemished and they can freeze my checking account.
The two month lease was made in bad faith because
it could not have possibly benefited me.
They totally relied on my ignorance.
The judges and lawyers all had this perfectly bogus lease
jammed so far up their asses
that they couldn't possibly care about anything else,
....like how I helped Patinha get tons more sober and much less suicidal.
I told her all she needs is more constructive activities.
She's very bright and has a full scholorship
and plans on attending college this fall.
I'd help even more kids like that,
rescuing them from the perverts who feed them drugs and ***** them,
but the price is just too damn high.
I had to pay 1,050 U.S. dollars just to move into a filthy room
in a serious crack house with massively bad plumbing and wiring.
My carpet looks like a pizza supreme and wasn't even vacuumed.
My rent went from 250 not long ago, in a nicer house, with better broadband,
to 500 dollars per month.
I'm going to have to either charge more, find more clients... or go homeless.
That's inflation my friend, up close and personal.
It's also yet another reason only idiots are not judgment proof.
The court system's priorites are nothing short of demonic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CrankHater" |
|
| Title: Re: The court system's priorites are nothing short of demonic. |
22 Mar 2006 09:13:01 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
pointless drivel
no change there then
get a blog cuntface
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The court system's priorites are nothing short of demonic. |
22 Mar 2006 11:52:35 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
{snip}
Outside of the Schadenfreude people get from reading your pointless
personal drama, nobody cares.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CrankHater" |
|
| Title: Re: Technology has matured since Newton, live with it. |
22 Mar 2006 05:43:42 AM |
|
|
tj Frazir wrote:
Its jeff ,,,on seattles reif,,
did ya move =BF
or still fighting da landlady =BF
Nice cruise ship fer sale dude.
3 mil one fer 1 mil one fer 4 mil pick one .
at shiprepo.com
get that 380 cabin rorro rent 380 rooms out for 250 or what eve it is
you pay .
open up the bars and restorants .
wadaya think jeffie ?
you truly are a retarded, fuckwit. why dont you ***** before i come
there and hurt you again dickweed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Technology has matured since Newton, live with it. |
22 Mar 2006 05:56:28 AM |
|
|
CrankHater wrote:
tj Frazir wrote:
Its jeff ,,,on seattles reif,,
did ya move =BF
or still fighting da landlady =BF
Nice cruise ship fer sale dude.
3 mil one fer 1 mil one fer 4 mil pick one .
at shiprepo.com
get that 380 cabin rorro rent 380 rooms out for 250 or what eve it is
you pay .
open up the bars and restorants .
wadaya think jeffie ?
you truly are a retarded, fuckwit. why dont you ***** before i come
there and hurt you again dickweed.
Wow! You mean you actually went to where he physically resides and
hurt him? I can't believe that! This is cyberspace, not reality!!
The land of make-believe! Calling names is allowed, but physical harm?
Impossible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Technology has matured since Newton, live with it. |
22 Mar 2006 10:20:49 AM |
|
|
HA HA cankhater best bing a ladder .
evryone knows the giant red indian.
My alaskan name is TAO .
Im was 8 feet tall but at 51 im 7*10 at 500 pounds.
Im the uglisyest giant that ever lived.
I have a 13 pound brain.
I loaded my first ship I put 12 grand down and logged the beach for $
200 ton.
Made tolet paper .
NOW Im 4 million acres 3 mil forest 1 mil farms.
12 container ships and traded 1 bil a year and amup to 2 bil a year
income.
I buy no stocks sell none.
I put 1/2 a billion into this ex-cruise ship biult in 2000 and rebiult
in 2002
I droped ove 150 million in this ng.
I biult this machine I post here with 15 years ago.
YOU can think Im nutz ,,,but you can stay por and stupid too.
I can sit here and make $ 2 mil an hour all day and resell the stack
and make 50 mil a month fo the rest of the year .
at the word go ,,it takes me an hour to find a seller and a buyer in
tade leads and load a ship
and make 50 cents pound or more.
have you ever even saw 20,000 tons of $ 9 pound ?
wana kick my ***** ??
Ill fly you to me if you got the balls o get onthe plane.
grizlies back off or get thier hides ripped off .
I have knocked them out drank thier blood and wore thier hides warm with
other grizlies looking on .
Most people I get mad at would rather face the bears.
when it comes to money ,,my way or stay stupid.
no bank lends 80 % of inventory but they all love 10 %.
Thats mind boggleing information to s dumbass like you.
mexico is 5 % if you shopped smart plus 10 % of what you spent at
customs ..
go get 10 % of 10 million dumbass and put it in a city far up north
like NYNY or chigago.
You can ad will stay a dumbass ,,,,
but you can stay a poor dumbass too.
The ONLY fucking thing between you and your dreams is your brain.
There is just nothing else in your way.
Only a very very rich dude can say what I said . NO ONE else has a
clue.
IF a billionaire slams the nail on the head and you stay poor ...who's
the dumbass ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
