Is c (velocity of light) relativistic or not ?!
Y.Porat
relativistic or not ??
(actually i am not the originator of that question ....
yet it needs to be clarified .....)
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Androcles
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:283480ce-b005-401e...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
(actually i am not the originator of that question ....
yet it needs to be clarified .....)
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-------------------
actually in order to prevent misunderstandings
i will ask the above queastion in a different more explicit way:
IS c ** A RELATIVISTIC FACTOR** OR NOT ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
Androcles
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------
err....
Y.Porat
----------------
please explain
and speak clearly !!
you will be surprised to find that
there are some people here (not me (:-))
that the issue is not obvious for them
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Androcles
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Tell me what "relativistic" means.
flamestar
relativistic you need to say what it is relitive to. Anything
including light can be relativistic in someway. The speed of light is
same for all observers and in that way it is absolute not
relativistic.
> ----------------
> please explain
> and speak clearly !!
>
> you will be surprised to find that
> there are some people here (not me (:-))
> that the issue is not obvious for them
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------
> Tell me what "relativistic" means.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Androcles
"flamestar" <agni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5b2963e-d560-416c...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Go on then, define rilitivi or relitevi or rileteve or whatever it is,
smart arse.
==========================================
rotchm
Define "relativistic".
Darwin123
You spoiled our fun.
This had been a fight between two delusional cranks, each thinking
the other was supporting relativity. In fact, neither Porat nor
Androcles support relativity, or know anything else about science.
Yet, they were firing away at each other. No one sane was taking part
in the discussion.
You then come along and insert something rational into the
discussion. Now, we will never see how these two nuts resolve their
imaginary differences !-(
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7b15f36a-e05d-46cc...@g17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
================================================
Aww, shame... let's have some fun, then.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein,
First Lady of Relativity and general all-round fucking genius.
How far is it from A to A, how many relativistic years in spacetime
does it take to get there, and what is your experience of it, drosen?
David Thomson
Light is not relativistic. Light is a stream of photons traveling at
the speed of photons.
Perception is relativistic. Relativity theories are concerned with
the perceptions of different observers viewing the same phenomenon.
Dave
Androcles
"David Thomson" <peace...@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:80c17fed-781b-47f3...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Dave
=============================================
Yeah, Twin A perceives Twin B stand still and Twin B perceives Twin A
goes off on a journey. Twin A perceives she has no dinner and returns
to Twin B, arriving at dawn. Twin B perceives Twin A arriving at noon
because less time has elapsed for Twin A than for Twin B. It is always
interesting when A meets B before B meets A, but at least Twin A
arrived in time for lunch even if she missed breakfast.
It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the
stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the
stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' --
Einstein.
It is essential to have lunch defined by means of crusty rolls, pickles and
cheese on the ploughman's table, and the lunch now defined being appropriate
to the relativistic table we call it ``the bacon, eggs, toast and coffee for
breakfast'' -- Androcles.
That's how brunch was born.
Y.Porat
--------------
the nuts and lier are you !!
i never opposed SR
i oppose only GR !!
got it piggy ??
science including is too serious to deal
by fucken cowns !!!
you are unable to understand what is on stake !!
(a revolution in modern physics !!)
not in SR
i said
i was never against it !!!
to be accurate about details or information
is a test of intelligence and honesty !!!
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.P
------------------------------
Y.Porat
----------------
relativistic is something that can get many values relative to some
***unchangeable base** !!!!
i tough tit is trivial
Please note that
**unchangeable base ** ......
ist it so complicated to understand ???
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
----------------
thanks !!
Y.Porat
---------------------------
rotchm
> > > Is c (the velocity of light)
> > >relativistic or not ??
> > Define "relativistic".
>
> ----------------
> relativistic is something that can get many values relative to some
> ***unchangeable base** !!!!
> i tough tit is trivial
How can I know what meaning *you* attribute to the expression
"relativistic" ?
Your defintion is different from the usual definition(s) used in
language and SR.
Google: define:relativistic : Referring to speeds of particles that
approach the speed of light.
With that definition, 'high speed particles in acceleratiors" are
relativistic.
Is light a particle? does its speed c *approach* c ? If you follow
maisntream physics, light is not "a particle" and a value (c) does not
approach itself. So, with that definition, No!, the velocity of light
is not relativistic.
The speed of light being fixed for all (inertial) frames, does not
get "many values", independent of the meaning of "unchangeable base".
So, again, according to *your* weird definition, No!, the speed of
light is not relativistic
> Please note that
> **unchangeable base ** ......ist it so complicated to understand ???
You have not defined that expression. Moreover, have you ever seen
that expression typically used in SR books? No you havent. So how can
we again know what *you* mean by those out-of-the-air expressions?
You want to discuss SR, use SR jargon.
Androcles
"rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102fe5c-818f-42f4...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > > Is c (the velocity of light)
> > >relativistic or not ??
> > Define "relativistic".
>
> ----------------
> relativistic is something that can get many values relative to some
> ***unchangeable base** !!!!
> i tough tit is trivial
How can I know what meaning *you* attribute to the expression
"relativistic" ?
Your defintion is different from the usual definition(s) used in
language and SR.
Google: define:relativistic : Referring to speeds of particles that
approach the speed of light.
With that definition, 'high speed particles in acceleratiors" are
relativistic.
Is light a particle?
==============================================
Yes. Light particles are called "photons".
An idiot like you wouldn't know that, of course.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>> > > Is c (the velocity of light)
>> > >relativistic or not ??
>
>> > Define "relativistic".
>>
>> ----------------
>> relativistic is something that can get many values relative to some
>> ***unchangeable base** !!!!
>> i tough tit is trivial
>
>How can I know what meaning *you* attribute to the expression
>"relativistic" ?
>Your defintion is different from the usual definition(s) used in
>language and SR.
'c' is a universal constant with dimenssions L/T. Its value is the same in all
frames. As far as we know, it also happens to be numerically equal to the speed
of EM relative to its source.
>Google: define:relativistic : Referring to speeds of particles that
>approach the speed of light.
>With that definition, 'high speed particles in acceleratiors" are
>relativistic.
>Is light a particle? does its speed c *approach* c ? If you follow
>maisntream physics, light is not "a particle" and a value (c) does not
>approach itself. So, with that definition, No!, the velocity of light
>is not relativistic.
>
>
> The speed of light being fixed for all (inertial) frames, does not
>get "many values", independent of the meaning of "unchangeable base".
>So, again, according to *your* weird definition, No!, the speed of
>light is not relativistic
........it is 'RELATIVE'.......... like ALL speeds.
>> Please note that
>> **unchangeable base ** ......ist it so complicated to understand ???
>
>You have not defined that expression. Moreover, have you ever seen
>that expression typically used in SR books? No you havent. So how can
>we again know what *you* mean by those out-of-the-air expressions?
>
>You want to discuss SR, use SR jargon.
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
BURT
> On Aug 22, 10:59 am, flamestar <agnif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 9:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:6a69fbc9-0bdb-44b2...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Aug 22, 11:17 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:8abcf42a-f1db-4991...@q1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Aug 22, 6:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:283480ce-b005-401e...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > | relativistic or not ??
> > > > > |
> > > > > | yet it needs to be clarified .....)
> > > > > | TIA
> > > > > | Y.Porat
> > > > > | --------------------------------
> > > > > |
> > > > > yet it needs to be clarified .....)
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is possible to accelerate a frame behind light. To this very fast
frame light would move ahead very slowly. In the same way you can stay
ahead of light by movement leaving it behind in order that it might
catch up.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
---------------------
if your bottom line is that
c is not relativistic
you are banging into an open door !!
becuse
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAY !!!
now
dont impress me with the
manin stream science !! (:-)
because
i proved by your claime that
c is not relativistic..
THAT THERE IS JSUT ONE KIND OF MASS
AND THERE IS NO RELATIVISTIC MASS
i did it as an historic prove
by the formula of photon momentum
P =hf/c !!
i showed to somwe mainstream fuckers that
there is in that undesputable formual
there is mass there
and now listen carefully Mr mainstream
NOTHING IN THAT FORMULA IS
RELATIVISTIC !!!!
SO THE MASS THERE IS NOT RELATIVISTIC AS WELL !!!
ie there is jsut one kind of mass
so
only now you can understand my historic revolution:
1 the photon has mass
even while that mass is moving at c !!
got it ?? *i wonder ..)
the concept that no mass can reach c
was a wrong jump to conclusion (a wrong interpretation of the gamma
factor
because while v=c
gamma factor becones UNDEFINED
EVEN MATHEMATICALLY !!!
so no mass can reah c was not stemming from SR
it was stemming from a basless interpretation of SR
all the rest of it is rigth!!
(one of the features of intelligence
is the ability to be SELECTIVE !!)
while using your own mind and not being a parrot !!
got it ??
2
there is just one kind of mass!
got it?
(i wonder)
iow
i took your ,maninstream physics
and gave it new insights and interpretations
and practical conclusions
got it?
i wonder
just one very very practical meaning is
THERE IS NO MASS LESS PARTICLES !!
NOT EVEN FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND!!
SO IF YOU GOT IT
THEN FORGET ABOUT THE HIGGS BOSONS !!
and other mas less particles
3
ENERGY AND MASS!! ARE CONSERVED !!!
(not only energy!!
they are conserved AND REVERSIBLE !!
that is
your
E=mc^2 !! and its good meaning
4
and the new golden historic rule:
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
NO REAL PHYSICS !!!!
copyright of the moron
Y.Porat
ATB
-------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you move behind light its motion in space relative to you is
slower. You can stay ahead of light causing its relative motion to be
slower behind.
Mitch Raemsch
rotchm
> if your bottom line is that
> c is not relativistic
No, that is not my claim.
It is what is deduced by *your* own definition that *you* provided.
Y.Porat
-------------
c is
'''relative like all speeds '''??
RELATIVE TO WHAT --TO ITSELF (:-)
can you relate yourself to yourself ??
can your compare yourself only to yourself
if you have no constant base to compare to
you cant compare anything
you are in a
CHAOS
you cannot call it science
Y.P
--------------------------------------
Inertial
news:283480ce-b005-401e...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>Is c (the velocity of light)
>relativistic or not ??
As you've been told before ... 'relativistic' means 'to do with the theory
of relativity'
The speed of light being a constant c in all inertial frames comes from a
postulate of special relativity .. and as 'relativistic' means 'to do with
the theory of relativity' then it is most definitely a "relativistic"
concept.
You have a strange idea of what "relativistic" means that is different to
everyone else .. you seem to think it means "relative". Its a different
word.
Inertial
news:484474c5-0fb6-4b4b...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 22, 5:52 pm, David Thomson <peacema...@volantis.org> wrote:
>> Light is not relativistic. Light is a stream of photons traveling at
>> the speed of photons.
>>
>> Perception is relativistic. Relativity theories are concerned with
>> the perceptions of different observers viewing the same phenomenon.
He's told you a load of nonsense. No wonder you thank him. But you really
don't need more nonsense
BURT
You cam move behind light at near its speed.
Light's constant is in motion through space not a matter frame.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
news:283480ce-b005-401e...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>Is c (the velocity of light)
>relativistic or not ??
from www.dictonary.com
rel·a·tiv·is·tic [rel-uh-tuh-vis-tik
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to relativity or relativism.
2. Physics .
a. subject to the special or the general theory of relativity.
b. (of a velocity) having a magnitude that is a significant fraction of the
speed of light.
c. (of a particle) having a relativistic velocity: radiation from
relativistic electrons.
'c' is definitely relativistic
BURT
Light flows constant through empty distance.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
--------------------
Hi mother fucker
just tell us in short:
is c relativistic ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
Inertial
news:94c45d66-6482-484b...@p3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>Hi mother fucker
Die Porat
>just tell us in short:
I did already
> is c relativistic ??
'c' is definitely relativistic
from www.dictonary.com
Peter Webb
--------------------
Hi mother fucker
just tell us in short:
is c relativistic ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
_________________________
This appears to be a discussion of what the English word "relativistic"
means, and is not about physics per se. Perhaps you should move this to a
newsgroup about the English language?
Y.Porat
-----------------
imbecile pigshit!
'''''c of particles having a relativistic velocity''
OF PARTICLES '' got it imbecile parrot
BIGGER PARTICLES MOVE SLOWER THAN C
the discionary is not a
dealing with scientific specific cases
it is not A SCIENCE BOOK!!!
it does not get into details
THAT ARE TOO COMPLICATE FOR A PARROT
MOTHER FUCKER PIGSHIT!!
c is a constant
got it retard ??
a constant cannot be relativistic !!
got it psycho pigshit ??
RELATIVISTIC IS SOMETHING THAT
CAN GET MANY VALUES
A CONSTANT CAN GET MANY VALUES
ONLY FOR MOTHER FUCKERS
RETARDS !!!
not ANYTHING THAT IS TAKING PART IN A RELATIVISTIC FORMULA
IS RELATIVISTIC!!
IF ALL THE COMPONENTS OF
A RELATIVISTIC FORMULA
WERE RELATIVISTIC
YOU WOULD GET
A INERTIAL'' - ARTFU''L- WHOEVER'' ANONYMOUS -PIGSHIT FORMULA !!!
any physics formula must have some
constant to be based on
or else you get the famous psychopath gangsters gang
physics
see what most thinking physicist people here say
imbecile retard psycho pigshit
i doubt that even your boss PD thinks as you
unless he is another thinking less parrot !!
Y.P
--------------------------------
Inertial
news:f6319dfb-5d37-4c07...@x42g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 23, 8:52 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>>
>> news:94c45d66-6482-484b...@p3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >Hi mother fucker
>>
>> Die Porat
>>
>> >just tell us in short:
>>
>> I did already
>>
>> > is c relativistic ??
>>
>> 'c' is definitely relativistic
>>
>> fromwww.dictonary.com
>>
>> rel·a·tiv·is·tic [rel-uh-tuh-vis-tik
>> –adjective
>> 1. of or pertaining to relativity or relativism.
>> 2. Physics .
>> a. subject to the special or the general theory of relativity.
>> b. (of a velocity) having a magnitude that is a significant fraction of
>> the
>> speed of light.
>> c. (of a particle) having a relativistic velocity: radiation from
>> relativistic electrons.
>>
>> 'c' is definitely relativistic
>
>-----------------
>imbecile pigshit!
That's what you are porat. The evidence is right in front of you and you
just throw on the insult. Typical,
>'''''c of particles having a relativistic velocity''
> OF PARTICLES '' got it imbecile parrot
Read what I quoted
b. (of a velocity) having a magnitude that is a significant fraction of the
speed of light.
Nothing to do with particles.
>BIGGER PARTICLES MOVE SLOWER THAN C
>
>the discionary is not a
>dealing with scientific specific cases
>it is not A SCIENCE BOOK!!!
Read what I quoted
==
2. Physics .
==
>it does not get into details
It doesn't need to
>THAT ARE TOO COMPLICATE FOR A PARROT
>MOTHER FUCKER PIGSHIT!!
That's you
> c is a constant
Yes .. as relativity theories say .. hence it being a constant is
relativistic. It isn't a constant in classical physics
> got it retard ??
That's you
>a constant cannot be relativistic !!
Wrong
>got it psycho pigshit ??
That's you
> RELATIVISTIC IS SOMETHING THAT
>CAN GET MANY VALUES
No .. it does NOT mean that .. I just showed you the dictionary definition.
>,A CONSTANT CAN GET MANY VALUES
>ONLY FOR MOTHER FUCKERS
>RETARDS !!!
That's you
>not ANYTHING THAT IS TAKING PART IN A RELATIVISTIC FORMULA
>IS RELATIVISTIC!!
Didn't say that
>IF ALL THE COMPONENTS OF
>A RELATIVISTIC FORMULA
>WERE RELATIVISTIC
>YOU WOULD GET
>A INERTIAL'' - ARTFU''L- WHOEVER'' ANONYMOUS -PIGSHIT FORMULA !!!
Nope
>any physics formula must have some
>constant to be based on*
Nope
>or else you get the famous psychopath gangsters gang
>physics
That's your "physics"
> see what most thinking physicist people here say
I have .. I am one of them
>imbecile retard psycho pigshit
That's you
>i doubt that even your boss PD
he's not my boss, moron
> thinks as you
>unless he is another thinking less parrot !!
Fuck off and Die you piece of ignorant jewish filth. You don't deserve to
live .. the world will be better off without you .. and hopefully VERY soon.
I look forward to a big party when I hear you are DEAD
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c71e5a6$0$11126$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
| "Y.Porat" wrote in message
| news:283480ce-b005-401e...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
| >
| >Is c (the velocity of light)
| >relativistic or not ??
|
| from www.dictonary.com
|
Fuck off, cunt.
Androcles
| "Y.Porat" wrote in message
| news:283480ce-b005-401e...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
| >
| >Is c (the velocity of light)
| >relativistic or not ??
|
| As you've been told before
Fuck off, cunt.
Androcles
| "Y.Porat" wrote in message
| news:484474c5-0fb6-4b4b...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
| >On Aug 22, 5:52 pm, David Thomson <peacema...@volantis.org> wrote:
| >> Light is not relativistic. Light is a stream of photons traveling at
| >> the speed of photons.
| >>
| >> Perception is relativistic. Relativity theories are concerned with
| >> the perceptions of different observers viewing the same phenomenon.
| >thanks !!
|
| He's told you a load of nonsense.
Fuck off, cunt.
Androcles
Fuck off, cunt.
Androcles
| "Y.Porat" wrote in message
| news:94c45d66-6482-484b...@p3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
| >Hi mother fucker
|
| Die Porat
|
| >just tell us in short:
|
| I did already
Fuck off, cunt.
Androcles
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c722622$0$3035$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Inertial
>
Not even worth a reply
Inertial
> Fuck off, cunt.
Inertial
>
[snip adnro having a tantrum]
Nothing left
Androcles
| "Androcles" wrote in message news:2aqco.158864$9R.7730@hurricane...
| >
| [snip adnro having a tantrum]
|
| Nothing left
|
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
------------------
Andro already detected
the psycho anonymous pigshit !!
actually
not only Androcless
but the majority of the reasonable people
here !!!
only idit morons can say that
c is relativistic
(EVEN THOUGH ANYONE UNDERSTANDS
THAT TAKING PART IN A RELATIVISTIC
FORMULA DOS SNOT MAKE c ITSELF - RELATIVISTIC !!!)
any secondary boy will understand it
unless he is a retarded psycho Gorilla
that made the ''destiny of his psychopathic life
to kill me ...as it is recorded again and again !
Y.P
---------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.P
-----------
Androcles
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fd0a657-e5ea-43a2...@p3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
You are not the brightest button on the tunic, Parrot, but you are
infinitely smarter than the psychotic anencephalous "Inert" bigot.
He resembles Charles Manson, David Koresh, Rasputin or George
Hammond -- totally insane but certain he's right.
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------------
he is right about what ?? (:-)
see what is the majority of sane people
think about the issue ??
and better put yourself in the right side !!
Y.P
-----------------------
--------------------------
Y.Porat
-----------
wrong!!
sorry you dint get the point to it is
trivially simple !!!
we are in a physics ng
actually the truble is that
too many people might fallinto that
linguistic trap
you have to think and understand some of the basics of physics
not linguistic!!
a physics formula can be relativistic
while it must have some constants in it
or else it is baseless physics
and a constant mind you
is** not relativistic** by definition !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Inertial
news:a3b56300-0697-4ebf...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 23, 12:33 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
>wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1fd0a657-e5ea-43a2...@p3g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 23, 10:15 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
Hilarious watching there two morons wank each other.online. Neither has the
foggiest idea of physics or math. BAHAHAHA
Inertial
Poor little Andro .. he can't cope with physics and is left to nothing but
senile ranting like his fellow bumchum Porat
Androcles
Androcles
How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there, insane
bigot?
Androcles
HE is certain HE is right. Nobody sane would agree.
Since plain English is too difficult for you, just drop it.
hanson
> retired "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
| > unemployed Mike Varney "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
| >> retired "Androcles" wrote:
> | >unemployed "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
> | >| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message...
>
Pentcho wrote:
> | >| >The formula: -------- *** [f = c/w] ***
> | >| >(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
| >| >has always been a nightmare in Einsteiniana.
| >|
Varney wrote:
| >| Nope .. it is perfectly fine and simple for SR/GR
| >
Androcles wrote:
| >Nope.. the inert moron is a classic case of
| >the Principle of Knee Jerk Idiocy.
>
Varney wrote:
| Fuck off moron
>
Androcles wrote:
Fuck off, cunt.
>
Varney wrote:
[snip adnro having a tantrum]
Nothing left
> | >|
Fuck off, cunt
> |
Varney wrote:
Poor little Andro .. he can't cope with physics and is left to
nothing but senile ranting like his fellow bumchum Porat
>
Fuck off, cunt
>
Varney wrote:>
Not even worth a reply
>
... ahahahaha... but Varney, you just gave a reply, which
is on the same level as when Andro gets mad for/about
snipping. So, with Varney now being a manifold cunt and
Andro being a senile moron it would be interesting to
hear the resolution as to whether *** [f = c/w] *** is right
or not or whether the advanced physics thinker bumchum
Yehiel Porat has the proper solution... Till then, you guys,
thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Y.Porat
> unemployed Mike Varney "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:> retired "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa> wrote:
>
> | > unemployed Mike Varney "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
---------------------
thanks Hanson
for the laughs ......
it is obvious that there are a few psychopath parasites here
thyat innovated nothing in their fucken
poor life
Y.P
---------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Aug 23, 12:10 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:11:25 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Is c (the velocity of light)
>> >> > >relativistic or not ??
>>
>> >> > Define "relativistic".
>>
>> >> ----------------
>> >> relativistic is something that can get many values relative to some
>> >> ***unchangeable base** !!!!
>> >> i tough tit is trivial
>>
>> >How can I know what meaning *you* attribute to the expression
>> >"relativistic" ?
>> >Your defintion is different from the usual definition(s) used in
>> >language and SR.
>>
>> 'c' is a universal constant with dimenssions L/T. Its value is the same in all
>> frames. As far as we know, it also happens to be numerically equal to the speed
>> of EM relative to its source.
>>
>> >Google: define:relativistic : Referring to speeds of particles that
>> >approach the speed of light.
>> >With that definition, 'high speed particles in acceleratiors" are
>> >relativistic.
>> >Is light a particle? does its speed c *approach* c ? If you follow
>> >maisntream physics, light is not "a particle" and a value (c) does not
>> >approach itself. So, with that definition, No!, the velocity of light
>> >is not relativistic.
>>
>> > The speed of light being fixed for all (inertial) frames, does not
>> >get "many values", independent of the meaning of "unchangeable base".
>> >So, again, according to *your* weird definition, No!, the speed of
>> >light is not relativistic
>>
>> ........it is 'RELATIVE'.......... like ALL speeds.
>>
>> >> Please note that
>> >> **unchangeable base ** ......ist it so complicated to understand ???
>>
>> >You have not defined that expression. Moreover, have you ever seen
>> >that expression typically used in SR books? No you havent. So how can
>> >we again know what *you* mean by those out-of-the-air expressions?
>>
>> >You want to discuss SR, use SR jargon.
>>
>> Henry Wilson...
>>
>> .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
>
>-------------
>c is
>'''relative like all speeds '''??
Can't you read?
'c' is NOT the speed of light, you senile old bastard. It is a universal
CONSTANT with dimensions L/T and value 2.9979E8 m/s. It is NOT relative to
anything.
Light speed is c relative to its source and c+v relative to an observer moving
at -c wrt the source.
>RELATIVE TO WHAT --TO ITSELF (:-)
>can you relate yourself to yourself ??
>
>can your compare yourself only to yourself
>if you have no constant base to compare to
>you cant compare anything
> you are in a
>CHAOS
>you cannot call it science
>
>Y.P
.....moron....
Henry Wilson...
.......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
Inertial
news:6d10375f-d0ed-465d...@q1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>it is obvious that there are a few psychopath parasites here
>thyat innovated nothing in their fucken
>poor life
You are proof of that, Moron
Inertial
I've already answered
> insane bigot?
You must be talking to someone else .. that's not me
Inertial
Lets press Andro's "Fuck off, cunt: button again. BAHAHAHA
Inertial
> hear the resolution as to whether *** [f = c/w] *** is right
Of course it is.
Androcles
Pathetic fuckwit Inert moron - can't answer a simple question correctly.
How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there?
Androcles
"Inert moron" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c72fe4f$0$11102$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Correct answer, c = 2AB/0.
Insane bigot "Inert moron" doesn't trust his god when his god says
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein
Inertial
>news:4c72fe4f$0$11102$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>| "Androcles" wrote in message news:e5wco.10766$yY6.9430@hurricane...
>| >How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there
>|
>| I've already answered
>|
>| > insane bigot?
>|
>| You must be talking to someone else .. that's not me
>|
>Correct answer, c = 2AB/0.
WRONG. Try again
Inertial
>"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>news:4c72fe99$0$11106$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>| "Androcles" wrote in message news:fIvco.103750$Vv6.60968@hurricane...
>| >"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>| >news:4c7276a9$0$11095$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>| >| "Androcles" wrote in message news:Foqco.158869$9R.46341@hurricane...
>| >| >
>| >| >
>| >| >"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>| >| >news:4c723004$0$11098$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>| >| >| "Androcles" wrote in message
>news:2aqco.158864$9R.7730@hurricane...
>| >| >| >
>| >| >| [snip adnro having a tantrum]
>| >| >|
>| >| >| Nothing left
>| >| >|
>| >| >Fuck off, cunt
>| >|
>| >| Poor little Andro .. he can't cope with physics and is left to nothing
>| >but
>| >| senile ranting like his fellow bumchum Porat
>| >Fuck off, cunt
>|
>| Lets press Andro's "Fuck off, cunt: button again. BAHAHAHA
>
> Pathetic fuckwit Inert moron
Looks like his "Fuck off, cunt" button is broken. Just like his brain.
What a shame
>- can't answer a simple question correctly.
If you could read, then you'd know I already had.
> How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there?
I answered you multiple times already .. try ERADING .. if that isn't too
much for your little Neanderthal brain.
Androcles
Rant all you want to, insane fuckwit. Nobody else is interested except
you fellow wanker waldofj, and we all know who that is.
Androcles
Y.Porat
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:52:40 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com>
------------------
(:-)
Y.P
---------------------
Inertial
>you fellow wanker waldofj, and we all know who that is.
Rant all you want to, insane fuckwit. Nobody else is interested AT ALL
Inertial
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Aug 23, 11:49 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
I knew it would be far too hard for you.
Y.Porat
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:02:25 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com>
-------------
(:-)
Y.P
----------------------
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Aug 24, 7:03 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
OK here it is again:
'c' is NOT the speed of light, you senile old bastard. It is a universal
CONSTANT with dimensions L/T and value 2.9979E8 m/s. It is NOT relative to
anything.
Light speed is c relative to its source and c+v relative to an observer moving
at -c wrt the source.
....get it now, moron?
whoever
news:dcd8765oisph8s412...@4ax.com...
>Light speed is c relative to its source and c+v relative to an observer
>moving
>at -c wrt the source.
You got ballistic theory wrong twice in a row .. you mean "at -v" .. not
"at -c"
Of course .. there is experimental evidence that light does NOT get any of
its speed from its source and always travels at c. Your claims otherwise
are nothing but outright lies.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
bert
> On Aug 22, 8:37 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:59 am, flamestar <agnif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 22, 9:39 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>> > > >news:6a69fbc9-0bdb-44b2...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Aug 22, 11:17 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>> > > > >news:8abcf42a-f1db-4991...@q1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On Aug 22, 6:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>> > > > > >news:283480ce-b005-401e...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > | Is c (the velocity of light)
> > > > > > | relativistic or not ??
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > | yet it needs to be clarified .....)
> > > > > > | TIA
> > > > > > | Y.Porat
> > > > > > | --------------------------------
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > is porat stupid or just a relativistic idiot?
> > > > > > (actually i am not the originator of that question ....
> > > > > > yet it needs to be clarified .....)
> > > > > > tia
>
> > > > > -------------------
> > > > > actually in order to prevent misunderstandings
> > > > > i will ask the above queastion in a different more explicit way:
>
> > > > > IS c ** A RELATIVISTIC FACTOR** OR NOT ??
>
> > > > > TIA
> > > > > Y.Porat
> > > > > -------------------------------
> > > > > err....
>
> > > You need to define your terms. When you asked if something is
> > > relativistic you need to say what it is relitive to. Anything
> > > including light can be relativistic in someway. The speed of light is
> > > same for all observers and in that way it is absolute not
> > > relativistic.
>
> > > > ----------------
> > > > please explain
> > > > and speak clearly !!
>
> > > > you will be surprised to find that
> > > > there are some people here (not me (:-))
> > > > that the issue is not obvious for them
>
> > > > TIA
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > --------------------------
> > > > Tell me what "relativistic" means.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You spoiled our fun.
> > This had been a fight between two delusional cranks, each thinking
> > the other was supporting relativity. In fact, neither Porat nor
> > Androcles support relativity, or know anything else about science.
> > Yet, they were firing away at each other. No one sane was taking part
> > in the discussion.
> > You then come along and insert something rational into the
> > discussion. Now, we will never see how these two nuts resolve their
> > imaginary differences !-(- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It is possible to accelerate a frame behind light. To this very fast
> frame light would move ahead very slowly. In the same way you can stay
> ahead of light by movement leaving it behind in order that it might
> catch up.
>
> Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Two Flashlights back to back do not create a reference frame that
their light is moving away at 2 c That has to tell you something
TreBert
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Henry Wilson DSc" wrote in message
>news:dcd8765oisph8s412...@4ax.com...
>>Light speed is c relative to its source and c+v relative to an observer
>>moving
>>at -c wrt the source.
>
>You got ballistic theory wrong twice in a row .. you mean "at -v" .. not
>"at -c"
Of course I meant v ....
Porat is so fucking useless he couldn't even see the typo....
>
>Of course .. there is experimental evidence that light does NOT get any of
>its speed from its source and always travels at c.
wrt what? ......the imaginary 'aether' in which you still believe??
>Your claims otherwise
>are nothing but outright lies.
OWLS has never been properly meaasured from a moving source. Variable star
curves are the only true indicator of source dependency and these
overwhelmingly support BaTh.
>
>
>--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Uncle Ben
> Is c (the velocity of light)
> relativistic or not ??
>
> (actually i am not the originator of that question ....
> yet it needs to be clarified .....)
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------------
Well, orange marmalade is relativistic. All my relatives enjoy it.
This makes more sense than the question does.
Uncle Ben
BURT
Relativism is out. Absolute motion produces the appearence of opposite
motion around not the other way around.
Notice this appearence shrinks into the distance.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Getting behind light in space means light moves ahead of your frame
slow. You can also leave light behind your frame in space by
accelerating. It takes time to catch up to you as if it were going
slower than it is through space relative to you.
Mitch Raemsch
artful
> On Aug 25, 2:43 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 12:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is c (the velocity of light)
> > > relativistic or not ??
>
> > > (actually i am not the originator of that question ....
> > > yet it needs to be clarified .....)
> > > TIA
> > > Y.Porat
> > > --------------------------------
>
> > Well, orange marmalade is relativistic. All my relatives enjoy it.
>
> > This makes more sense than the question does.
>
> > Uncle Ben
>
> Relativism
I don't think you meant to use that word .. 'relativism' in unrelated
to physics .. it is philosophy
[snip rest of nonsense]
PD
> On Aug 22, 6:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:283480ce-b005-401e...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > | relativistic or not ??
> > |
> > | (actually i am not the originator of that question ....
> > | yet it needs to be clarified .....)
> > | TIA
> > | Y.Porat
> > | --------------------------------
> > |
> > yet it needs to be clarified .....)
>
> -------------------
> actually in order to prevent misunderstandings
> i will ask the above queastion in a different more explicit way:
>
> IS c ** A RELATIVISTIC FACTOR** OR NOT ??
There is no such thing as a "relativistic factor".
You might as well ask if c is an ectopic cantelope.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------------
PD
> On Aug 22, 5:36 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 22, 12:49 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > relativistic or not ??
>
> > > (actually i am not the originator of that question ....
> > > yet it needs to be clarified .....)
> > > TIA
> > > Y.Porat
> > > --------------------------------
>
>
> ----------------
> relativistic is something that can get many values relative to some
> ***unchangeable base** !!!!
What an odd definition. That bears no resemblance to anything used in
physics.
> i tough tit is trivial
> Please note that
> **unchangeable base ** ......
> ist it so complicated to understand ???
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ----------------
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d9f7542-edbe-424e...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
=========================================
You might as well call Relativity an eclectic timefuck.
Y.Porat
what is he Gamma factor
for SR ??
TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
It is a factor that appears in *some* equations that are relevant to a
relativistic treatment of some systems. However, the absence of this
factor does not flag that the equation or the treatments are not
relativistic, and certainly not all equations relevant to a
relativistic treatment would include this factor gamma.
There's no way to discern just by looking at the quantities or symbols
in an equation or formula whether that equation or formula is
relativistic.
You actually have to know what you're doing.
Sorry, pal.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------
Androcles
Sorry, pal.
============================================
And your sorry arse thinks it knows what it is doing?
Exuding sorry shit is what it is doing.
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
please give some concrete examples
of which the equation belong to SR or define something
relativistic ---
but does not include the gamma factor
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
>
PD
Sure:
E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2.
Not a gamma to be seen.
Might also look at the Lagrangian for QED, which is fully relativistic
quantum electrodynamics. Not a gamma to be found.
There are many such examples.
As I said, you have to know what you're doing.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------------
>
>
Androcles
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:975227fe-6324-4b5b...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
please
====================================
Mr Parrot, fuck off, you stupid snipping bastard.
Androcles
============================
And nonsensical.
Y.Porat
as far as i remember
the derivation of it is based on the gamma
factor as well
2
how about
photon momentum = hf/c??
3
if c is constant in all frames
to what is it relativistic
to itself ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
No, it is not.
>
> 2
> how about
>
> photon momentum = hf/c??
> 3
That is a feature of quantum mechanics, not of relativity. Of course,
there is relativistic quantum mechanics.
>
> if c is constant in all frames
> to what is it relativistic
> to itself ??
"Relativistic" means pertaining to relativity. You have this term
confused with "relative" as in, "velocity relative to". They do not
mean the same thing, and it is not true that every time you use the
words "relative to", you are talking about relativity.
The speed of light relative to any observer is constant in all frames.
No, it is not relative to itself.
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -------------------------
PD
I don't know what you find nonsensical about it.
Androcles
====================================
You have no idea what you are talking about, Duck. Simple
algebra is beyond your capabilities.
a = mc^2 (rest mass)
b = 1/2 mv^2 (KE)
(a+b)^2 = a^2 +2ab +b^2
= (mc^2)^2 + ... but why bother explaining it to a
fuckin' incompetent malicious bigot like you when you are
only trying to tease the moron Parrot with your parroting?
PD
Why would you use an *approximation* for b?
>
> (a+b)^2 = a^2 +2ab +b^2
>
> = (mc^2)^2 + ...
Sorry, you were saying something about E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2 being
nonsensical, but you still haven't explained why you think it is.
> but why bother explaining it to a
> fuckin' incompetent malicious bigot like you when you are
> only trying to tease the moron Parrot with your parroting?
Well, since you made a statement that it's nonsensical, I thought it
would be worthwhile you elucidating why you think so. But if you don't
think your statements are worthwhile paying any heed to, and they're
just shout-outs from a drunken heckler that aren't based on anything
concrete, then of course I'd abide by your self-assessment.
Androcles
===========================================
I've given you enough information to complete your own homework,
Phuckwit Duck, which I left as an assignment for you.
You will not benefit by me doing it for you.
You are not entitled to be educated. Someone who insists on
being willfully ignorant does not deserve to be dissuaded.
Nobody owes you anything. Nobody *should* do anything for
you. It's your choice to learn or not to learn."-- Phuckwit Duck
Inertial
news:975227fe-6324-4b5b...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>please give some concrete examples
>of which the equation belong to SR or define something
>relativistic ---
>but does not include the gamma factor
I already gave you several examples. multiple times and in multiple threads.
You simply don't bother reading. You're a a troll or a moron.
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c7c5416$0$28638$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
You simply don't bother reading.
You're a a a a a a a a a a troll or a a a a a a a stuttering moron.
Inertial
>Ref:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
>What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
>the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
>the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
>the "time" each way is the same?
You show me WHERE Einstein said it, in those words, and I'll answer you. If
not, please admit that you lied when you implied that he did.
Androcles
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
Illiterate miserable wankers like you never can convert simple algebra to
plain English.
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4c7c6434$0$28644$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...| "Androcles" wrote in messagenews:DNYeo.12$IS...@newsfe13.ams2...
>
> | >Ref:
> | >
> | >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> | >
> | >What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
> | >the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> | >the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> | >the "time" each way is the same?
> |
> | You show me WHERE Einstein said it, in those words, and I'll answer you.
> If
> | not, please admit that you lied when you implied that he did.
> |
> Can't read plain algebra, huh?
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> Illiterate miserable wankers like you never can convert simple algebra to
> plain English.
the idiot crook parrot anonymous - Inertial
that has as well other anonymous names -
did not learn untill now that
WHILE c+v
for instance for photons
***RELATIVITY STOPS TO EXIST ** !!
it is an exception special case
so
Andro
are we from now on cooperators ??
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------