Toss the pulse of light up.

[Vilas Tamhane]

When I toss a ball up it is bounced back in my hand with certain
velocity. If I do that in a train compartment, always tossing with
equal force, whatever might be the velocity of the train, there is
never a change in velocity of the ball. Why?
I now toss up a pulse of light on the mirror and I always receive the
pulse with unchanged velocity c at the source. Why?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2a43e1f-3374-4ed6...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

> When I toss a ball up it is bounced back in my hand with certain
> velocity.

Yes, a "certain" velocity that has the same magnitude as the
ball had when you tossed it.

> If I do that in a train compartment,

You always *are* in a "train compartment", so to speak. You have
never been in some kind of "absolute rest".

> always tossing with
> equal force, whatever might be the velocity of the train, there is
> never a change in velocity of the ball. Why?

Why would there be? You always are in a train compartment.

> I now toss up a pulse of light on the mirror and I always receive the
> pulse with unchanged velocity c at the source. Why?

You cannot *toss* pulses of light. You can *release* them.
Tossing means that you can influence the speed by varying
the "amount of toss". You can't do that with light.

Dirk Vdm

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Sep 12, 1:39 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I thought, you would spend little time to understand what I mean. I
used the word ‘toss’ for light pulse in a literal way.
But where are your answers?

[Vilas Tamhane]

> But where are your answers?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought, you would spend little time to understand what I mean. I
used the word ‘toss’ for light pulse in a literal way.
But where are your answers?

OK, I will search meaning in your answer. ‘All inertial frames are
equivalent’. Now tell me why they are equivalent. Why any mechanical
experiment, such as tossing up a ball, cannot detect velocity of the
train compartment?

[space...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:48:09 PM UTC-7, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Sep 12, 7:43 pm, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 1:39 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> >
>

Lets watch light move...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Vilas Tamhane]

> > train compartment?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Light is not waves predicted by Maxwell. They are photons. That is why
I used a light pulse. Such a pulse with narrow length can be produced
by lesser. First you must come to the conclusion if this light pulse
behaves like a ball and if the observer in a train will always measure
its velocity to be c.
I will not buy the argument of Dirk that for an observer in the train,
he is always at zero velocity. He can accelerate and knowing the
acceleration he can predict his new velocity. For a ball this new
velocity is undetectable. I asked why. I want specific answer.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

> I thought, you would spend little time to understand what I mean. I
> used the word �toss� for light pulse in a literal way.
> But where are your answers?
>
> OK, I will search meaning in your answer. �All inertial frames are
> equivalent�. Now tell me why they are equivalent.

No idea.

> Why any mechanical
> experiment, such as tossing up a ball, cannot detect velocity of the
> train compartment?

No idea.
This fenomenom has been given names like "inertia" but that
doesn't really help much. It's just a name.
*Why* nature behaves that way, seems to be a question for
which we have no solid answer. There's lots of questions
without solid answers.

Dirk Vdm

[Y]

Why not ? His point is very clear and correct. You are never at rest,
you and the ball are always moving. Standing on a moving train is like
standing on the Earth.

-y

[Helmut Wabnig]

Sheesh..he wants answers.

Where is Androcles when we need him?

w.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in message news:r12358hertb06nt2b...@4ax.com...

===========================================

 

Why should I get involved in Vilas’s queer-bashing?If he wants to poke a

pointy stick at the dumb homosexual that’s his business.

-- So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years (2T) while his travelling twin sister will have
aged 6 years (2T/g).
-- Dork Van de improper faggot

 

[David Fuller]

Why does a bell ring with the same tone each time it is struck.




the size of the bell and the material it is made of.




Could empty space be considered anti (matter / energy)




(You, Mr. Tamhane, the origin), are falling (in and away or 180
degrees) from the receding edge of the hyper-sphere at c

180 degrees is gravity, two right angles, two squares, two c's or c
squared.

[David Fuller]

On Sep 12, 2:36 pm, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:

the light pulse is receding away form the origin in 64800 degrees or
360 x 180 degrees.
or the origin is receding inward from the light pulse in 64800
degrees.
or the light pulse is receding away in 32400 degrees and the origin is
receding inward in 32400 degrees.
gravity = 648000 degrees, light = 32400 degrees of rotation

64800 degrees divided into right angles is "720 right angles"

the square root of 720 is (26.832815729997476356910084024775 Wraps) of
the universe around itself

or 26.832815729997476356910084024775 Octaves of compression

[David Fuller]

2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23
29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67
71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109
113
127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167
173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227
229
233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277
281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347
349
353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401
409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461
463
467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523
541
547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599
601
607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653
659
661 673 677 683 691 701 709 719 727 733

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Sep 12, 11:57 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:

> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Answer is simple. Ball is also moving with the train.

[Vilas Tamhane]

> -y- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So why is he avoiding the answer? Ball cannot detect velocity of the
train because as you have pointed out, ball is also moving with the
train. This is the reason why all mechanical experiments are
equivalent in all inertial frames.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Sep 13, 2:28 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
<Septem...@2012.org> wrote:
> "Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote in messagenews:r12358hertb06nt2b...@4ax.com...

> -- Dork Van de improper faggot- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

But Dirk is not answering a question that a schoolboy would
immediately answer. He know it but doesn’t want to answer.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Why are you creating these complications?

[Vilas Tamhane]

Unable to understand what you are saying.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:873a9457-e44f-4a39...@oq8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

======================================

Bash the queer, then. Have fun trying to get the chimpanzee

to understand physics, logic and mathematics. The cretin is

so stupid he thinks he ages twice as fast because his twin

sister went for a joy ride in 2002 and hasn’t come back yet.

Dork is now 20 years older in the 10 years since he wrote

that. You can see him and his faggot girlfriend on his web site,

the picture is also 20 years old.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/index.html

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Vilas Tamhane]

It appears to me that all are averse to discuss the question I raised
for fear of shaking fundamental aspect of SR. So I would like to make
my argument.

I do not wish to discuss here, whether light is ballistic or not. If
light is ballistic then it would behave like a ball and so even for
light all inertial frames would be equivalent. But in that case, MMX
needs no explanation and there is no need for SR.

In case light is not ballistic, then inertial frames are not
equivalent and it is easy to detect motion of any frame based on
absolute velocity of light. But in this case detected velocity of
light would be c+v and c-v. In this case too SR will have to be
dumped.

Some illustrious posters have argued that there is no difference in
the frames. This is true in terms of relativity. However a passenger
can always perform the experiment, while stationary and then after
accelerating to some constant velocity. Problem with relativity is
that it doesn’t deal with such a reality. Of course stationary
observer will easily detect this velocity but actually this is not
necessary. Based on knowledge, a passenger can find out if light is
ballistic or not. If it is ballistic then he will not be able to
detect his own uniform motion.

Some have argued that, SR is based on two postulates. However
postulates cannot ignore known facts. Extraordinary postulate can be
made in case of unknown. For example postulate of ether to explain
wave nature of light. But ether was rejected as it would require
abnormal properties. Here we are dealing with something within our
knowledge of something and that which can be proved. A very small
pulse of light can be generated and it does have finite velocity in
space. Once we know this, there is no other way but to treat this
pulse as a bunch of photons. It is madness to treat light as both
Maxwell’s wave and photon simultaneously.

The only question remains is that of nature of light which gets itself
propagated at a constant velocity. Whether it is source independent or
not has no relation to the postulates. If light is ballistic then
Einstein’s 2nd postulate is wrong and if it not then his 1st postulate
is wrong.

[paparios]

El viernes, 14 de septiembre de 2012 10:31:05 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:
> On Sep 12, 12:36 pm, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When I toss a ball up it is bounced back in my hand with certain
>
> > velocity. If I do that in a train compartment, always tossing with
>
> > equal force, whatever might be the velocity of the train, there is
>
> > never a change in velocity of the ball. Why?

Do you understand that your experiment is poorly worded, right?
First, you affirm that "there is never a change in velocity of the ball".

There are at least two physical problems in that phrase. Can you recognize them?

>
> > I now toss up a pulse of light on the mirror and I always receive the
>
> > pulse with unchanged velocity c at the source. Why?
>

Do you realize that sending a light pulse up and then down is clearly a different situation with respect to the ball experiment? Why?

>
>
> It appears to me that all are averse to discuss the question I raised
>
> for fear of shaking fundamental aspect of SR. So I would like to make
>
> my argument.
>

The only "shaking" thing here is your poor understanding of the subject you try to discuss.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"paparios" <papa...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f3e0204d-fcc8-4997...@googlegroups.com...

El viernes, 14 de septiembre de 2012 10:31:05 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane  escribió:
> On Sep 12, 12:36 pm, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When I toss a ball up it is bounced back in my hand with certain
>
> > velocity. If I do that in a train compartment, always tossing with
>
> > equal force, whatever might be the velocity of the train, there is
>
> > never a change in velocity of the ball. Why?

Do you understand that your experiment is poorly worded, right?
First, you affirm that "there is never a change in velocity of the ball".

There are at least two physical problems in that phrase. Can you recognize them?

 

He means there is no change in the horizontal velocity of

the ball relative to the track, moron. Of course there is a change

in the vertical velocity, it changes direction as he stated, imbecile.

You are an idiot. Can you recognise yourself?

 

>
> > I now toss up a pulse of light on the mirror and I always receive the
>
> > pulse with unchanged velocity c at the source. Why?
>

Do you realize that sending a light pulse up and then down is clearly a different situation with respect to the ball experiment? Why?

=======================================

 

 

No it isn’t a different situation, papabozo. It is clearly the same as the ball experiment, you stupid fuck.

 

>
>
> It appears to me that all are averse to discuss the question I raised
>
> for fear of shaking fundamental aspect of SR. So I would like to make
>
> my argument.
>

The only "shaking" thing here is your poor understanding of the subject you try to discuss.

 

He understands it completely, you fucking troll.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3674e476-4a34-4fe7...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com

> On Sep 12, 12:36 pm, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When I toss a ball up it is bounced back in my hand with certain
>> velocity. If I do that in a train compartment, always tossing with
>> equal force, whatever might be the velocity of the train, there is
>> never a change in velocity of the ball. Why?
>> I now toss up a pulse of light on the mirror and I always receive the
>> pulse with unchanged velocity c at the source. Why?
>
> It appears to me that all are averse to discuss the question I raised
> for fear of shaking fundamental aspect of SR. So I would like to make
> my argument.

That is the problem. You show *no understanding whatsoever*
of physics 101 (which means level age-13) and you are here to
make arguments about a topic of advanced physics.
You don't have the background, you don't have the maturity, and
you don't have the mind-set for having such discussions. Go to
school, do some real hard work, and come back in 10 years of so.

Dirk Vdm

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Sep 14, 8:34 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

You mean to say I should learn by rote, school physics as well as
advanced physics, the way you did?

[shuba]

Vilas wrote:

> It appears to me that all are averse to discuss the question I
> raised for fear of shaking fundamental aspect of SR.

More likely, there simply isn't much interest in a tosser like
Vilas Tamhane, whose knowledge is so pathetically poor that he
wasn't even able to form a coherent question about the topic.

> It is madness to treat light as both Maxwell’s wave and photon
> simultaneously.

No one does that. Classical and quantum electrodynamics have
separate domains. Both, as conventionally formulated, fundamentally
rely on the ideas of special relativity. But we can expect that
rather than learning about them, you will continue being a tosser.


---Tim Shuba---

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4f10a70a-27ea-4baa...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com

You are here with the argument that airplanes cannot possibly fly
because they are heavier than air. Imbecile.

Dirk Vdm

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Sep 14, 9:43 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"

> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

This is just to remind you. You said, you don’t love physics. You just
find it interesting. Your anger says something else. I think you are
in love of physics, especially SR.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8c2071be-a235-403e...@kn3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com

> This is just to remind you. You said, you don�t love physics. You just

> find it interesting. Your anger says something else. I think you are
> in love of physics, especially SR.

Ping alen...
My apologies, you were correct, there is no hope for Tamhane
either :-)

Dirk Vdm

[wugi]

Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Sep 12, 1:39 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"

> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
>> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>

>> news:f2a43e1f-3374-4ed6...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com

>>
>>> When I toss a ball up it is bounced back in my hand with certain
>>> velocity.
>>

>> Yes, a "certain" velocity that has the same magnitude as the
>> ball had when you tossed it.
>>

>>> If I do that in a train compartment,
>>

>> You always *are* in a "train compartment", so to speak. You have
>> never been in some kind of "absolute rest".
>>

>>> always tossing with
>>> equal force, whatever might be the velocity of the train, there is
>>> never a change in velocity of the ball. Why?
>>

>> Why would there be? You always are in a train compartment.
>>

>>> I now toss up a pulse of light on the mirror and I always receive
>>> the pulse with unchanged velocity c at the source. Why?
>>

>> You cannot *toss* pulses of light. You can *release* them.
>> Tossing means that you can influence the speed by varying
>> the "amount of toss". You can't do that with light.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> I thought, you would spend little time to understand what I mean. I
> used the word �toss� for light pulse in a literal way.

So you were wrong there, then.

> But where are your answers?

Just in-between your text above, rather nicely. Di'nt see them?
Ok, yet another, if vain, try:
each inertial observer sees light "pulsing" at c.
each of them sees other observers as if using length contracted rods and
time dilated clocks for their measuring, thus however reaching the same
result for c.
two observers assign the same contraction and dilation values to each
other's frames.
this implies of course that they don't operate along coinciding lines of
simultaneity.

See the mutuality of the transformations:
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/MySRT/LorentzObjects.PNG
(on my http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm )
Visualize operating a simple canonic axis transform swapping xt and x't'
axes, to view a similar graph from the standpoint of x't'. Realize that x
and t are no more "orthogonal" to each other, than are x' and t'.

guido

[Vilas Tamhane]

> guido- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I am not talking about two observers. I am talking about one observer.
I am speculating on his observations in two different frames. We know
that the frames are different and the passenger can safely arrive at
this conclusion from the record of acceleration.

Once the passenger knows (knows and not measures) that his compartment
in the second frame has different velocity, he simply has to find out
if the pulse of light returns back to the source or falls behind. This
is the only experiment he has to conduct.

I am not even assuming any result. Whatever might be the result, SR is
a looser.

You have put your argument on its head. Instead of starting from
bottom to top you have put the train of logic in a reverse gear.

[Vilas Tamhane]

I posted a message,
"Thanks for the compliments."
Why the message disappeared?


On Friday, September 14, 2012 10:15:28 AM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8c2071be-a235-403e...@kn3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com > On Sep 14, 9:43 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote: >> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4f10a70a-27ea-4baa...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 14, 8:34 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" >>> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote: >>>> "Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>> news:3674e476-4a34-4fe7...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com >> >>>>> On Sep 12, 12:36 pm, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> When I toss a ball up it is bounced back in my hand with certain >>>>>> velocity. If I do that in a train compartment, always tossing >>>>>> with equal force, whatever might be the velocity of the train, >>>>>> there is never a change in velocity of the ball. Why? >>>>>> I now toss up a pulse of light on the mirror and I always receive >>>>>> the pulse with unchanged velocity c at the source. Why? >> >>>>> It appears to me that all are averse to discuss the question I >>>>> raised for fear of shaking fundamental aspect of SR. So I would >>>>> like to make my argument. >> >>>> That is the problem. You show *no understanding whatsoever* >>>> of physics 101 (which means level age-13) and you are here to >>>> make arguments about a topic of advanced physics. >>>> You don't have the background, you don't have the maturity, and >>>> you don't have the mind-set for having such discussions. Go to >>>> school, do some real hard work, and come back in 10 years of so. >> >>>> Dirk Vdm >> >>> You mean to say I should learn by rote, school physics as well as >>> advanced physics, the way you did? >> >> You are here with the argument that airplanes cannot possibly fly >> because they are heavier than air. Imbecile. >> >> Dirk Vdm > > This is just to remind you. You said, you don’t love physics. You just > find it interesting. Your anger says something else. I think you are > in love of physics, especially SR. Ping alen... My apologies, you were correct, there is no hope for Tamhane either :-) Dirk Vdm

[Ralph Garbage]

Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> I posted a message,
> "Thanks for the compliments."
> Why the message disappeared?

First tell me why any of your messages appear.

[Ralph Garbage]

Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> I posted a message,
> "Thanks for the compliments."
> Why the message disappeared?
>

Of course to encourage you to think, if that's possible, before you post.