Speed of light relative to what?
dh
follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
constant relative to its *point of emission*. So if an object in
space is moving "at" 1K miles per second (but relative to what?)
and emits light in all directions the light will have a velocity
of 186K miles per second relative to that point in space but the
light moving in the same dirction as the object which emitted it
will have a velocity of 185K miles per second relative to that
object, and light moving in the opposite direction will have a
velocity of 187K miles per second relative to the object.
That's my impression of it so far, but how could we tell what
an object's velocity is relative to a stationary point in space?
How could we know if anything is "stationary" in space?
alie...@gmail.com
> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
> follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
> constant relative to its *point of emission*.
Opinion doesn't matter much in the sciences. Experiment matters.
> So if an object in
> space is moving "at" 1K miles per second (but relative to what?)
(That's the crucial question.)
> and emits light in all directions the light will have a velocity
> of 186K miles per second relative to that point in space but the
> light moving in the same dirction as the object which emitted it
> will have a velocity of 185K miles per second relative to that
> object, and light moving in the opposite direction will have a
> velocity of 187K miles per second relative to the object.
This is in exact opposition to the experimental results of, say,
everyday use of radar.
> That's my impression of it so far, but how could we tell what
> an object's velocity is relative to a stationary point in space?
> How could we know if anything is "stationary" in space?
That's the point of abandoning Newtonian Absolute space; you can't
measure velocity with respect to space. You have to measure it with
respect to objects.
Mark L. Fergerson
dlzc
On Aug 31, 8:45 am, dh@. wrote:
> I've asked this in some of these groups before
> but didn't follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO
> the speed of light is constant relative to its *point
> of emission*.
c wrt the emitter, c wrt any inertial frame, and c wrt the absorber.
> So if an object in space is moving "at" 1K miles
> per second (but relative to what?
Something that does the measuring.
> ) and emits light in all directions the light will
> have a velocity of 186K miles per second relative
> to that point in space but the light moving in the
> same dirction as the object which emitted it
> will have a velocity of 185K miles per second
> relative to that object, and light moving in the
> opposite direction will have a velocity of 187K
> miles per second relative to the object.
But the object, should it try to measure those two light speeds, would
get c for both.
> That's my impression of it so far, but how
> could we tell what an object's velocity is relative
> to a stationary point in space?
Nature does not permit us to know what is "stationary". So far, we
have to measure our relative motion wrt the average of the entire
Universe. Whether or not stationary wrt that "population" might age a
little faster... remains to be seen.
> How could we know if anything is "stationary"
> in space?
Since Nature does not permit it, and any attempt to measure the speed
of light obtains c, what does it matter?
David A. Smith
Androcles
<dh@.> wrote in message news:8t7q765j9bm0q8mn5...@4ax.com...
What happens is this:
The star is in elliptical orbit, moving toward and away from us.
In other words, fast light (187 mps) emitted later overtakes slow light
(185 mps) emitted earlier, if the star is far enough away.
Plotting that on a graph,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
That means the photons bunch together and the star suddenly gets brighter,
TWICE, as in this REAL data:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Read the first line of this paper:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Your opinion was correct in 1887 and is still correct today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
Desertphile
> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
> follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
> constant relative to its *point of emission*.
No.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Y.Porat
--------------
iow
c is not relativistic to anything!
but to itself
c is not relativistic !!
see my threads about it
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Daryl McCullough
>
> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
>follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
>constant relative to its *point of emission*.
Speed is a coordinate-dependent quantity. If an object or signal
travels from point A to point B, then the
average speed is given by: D_AB/t_AB, where D_AB is the distance
between A and B, and t_AB is the time required to travel that
distance. Distance and time are both measured relative to a
*coordinate* system. So speed is relative to a coordinate system,
not relative to another object. Einstein's postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light claims that light has the same
speed c in all *inertial* coordinate systems.
You can operationalize what it means for light to travel at speed
c in the following way: Take a very long, straight
platform that is traveling inertially. Mark two spots on the
platform a distance D apart (where D is measured using standard
metersticks at rest relative to the platform). Take two standard
clocks at rest relative to the platform. Set them to the same
time. Slowly move one clock to one of the spots, and move the
other clock to the other spot. Now, when one clock shows time t=12:00,
send a light signal from that clock to the other. Let T be the time
shown on the second clock when the signal arrives. Then D/T = c
is the prediction of Special Relativity.
It is completely irrelevant whether the light signal was produced
by an object in motion relative to the platform, or not, as long
as the light starts at one of the points and ends at the other
point.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Tom Roberts
> IMO the speed of light is
> constant relative to its *point of emission*.
"Speed relative to a point" is nonsense.
Speed is inherently measured relative to some COORDINATE SYSTEM.
In particular, speed is not measured relative to some
"point in space". Nor is it measured relative to some
object (but it can be measured relative to the rest frame
of a specified object).
[Yes, we commonly say "speed relative to that object" when
we really mean "speed relative to the rest frame of that
object". Verbal shortcuts do not change this.]
> So if an object in
> space is moving "at" 1K miles per second (but relative to what?)
> and emits light in all directions the light will have a velocity
> of 186K miles per second relative to that point in space but the
> light moving in the same dirction as the object which emitted it
> will have a velocity of 185K miles per second relative to that
> object, and light moving in the opposite direction will have a
> velocity of 187K miles per second relative to the object.
This is not observed in the word we inhabit. You might WISH it were so, and you
might THINK it is so, but actual measurements disagree.
See the FAQ page for a list of measurements of the speed of
light from moving sources:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Your parenthetical "but relative to what?" gets at the heart of the matter. You
MUST figure out how to answer that before you can understand this. You'll find
that only coordinate systems can answer the question in a useful way.
> how could we tell what
> an object's velocity is relative to a stationary point in space?
There is no way to do that; indeed the question does not make sense, as it is
internally self-inconsistent. One can measure speed relative to a coordinate
system that includes the point in question, but that's the best one can do.
> How could we know if anything is "stationary" in space?
This of course depends on what one means by "stationary". Ultimately it comes
down to being "stationary relative to these coordinates", because "stationary"
is a synonym for "speed of zero", and speed is only measured relative to
coordinates.
Note carefully the difference between any THING and "a point".
Points are mathematical abstractions, not things.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:13cq76pqe2emm04le...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:45:37 -0400, dh@. wrote:
|
| > I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
| > follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
| > constant relative to its *point of emission*.
|
| No.
|
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:De2dnfcfooG...@giganews.com...
| dh@. wrote:
| > IMO the speed of light is
| > constant relative to its *point of emission*.
|
| "Speed relative to a point" is nonsense.
|
| Speed is inherently measured relative to some COORDINATE SYSTEM.
"Empty space", a preferred frame of reference. Where is the origin of this
mythical coordinate system?
The point of emission, of course. You are a babbling lunatic, of course.
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
<snip>
>The star is in elliptical orbit, moving toward and away from us.
>In other words, fast light (187 mps) emitted later overtakes slow light
>(185 mps) emitted earlier, if the star is far enough away.
Nope; sorry. There's no such thing as "fast light" or "slow
light" except when comparing c in different media (such as
vacuum, air and glass). C is a constant in any given medium.
If a light emitter is moving radially with respect to the
observer the frequency differs from that measured at the
emitter (see "Doppler effect") but the velocity is always
measured as c by *any* observer.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Androcles
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:frkq769ndshn3bi76...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:12:01 +0100, the following appeared
| in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
|
| <snip>
Sure, anytime.
Anything else I can snip for you? I'm only too happy to oblige.
Sam Wormley
> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
> follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
> constant relative to its*point of emission*.
The speed of light is c for all inertial observers.
Regarding photons from the quantum mechanical "perspective",
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Photon momentum
p = hν/c = h/λ
Photon Energy
E = hν
Androcles
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JcydnRVrsuQ48eDR...@mchsi.com...
| On 8/31/10 10:45 AM, dh@. wrote:
| > I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
| > follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
| > constant relative to its*point of emission*.
|
| The speed of light is c for all inertial observers.
Lying bastard. Lying STUPID bastard. Idiot. Cretin. Mystic shaman.
Inertial
>
>follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
>constant relative to its *point of emission*.
Yes it is
> So if an object in
>space is moving "at" 1K miles per second (but relative to what?)
>and emits light in all directions the light will have a velocity
>of 186K miles per second relative to that point in space
Yes it will
>but the
>light moving in the same dirction as the object which emitted it
>will have a velocity of 185K miles per second relative to that
>object,
Nope
>and light moving in the opposite direction will have a
>velocity of 187K miles per second relative to the object.
Nope
> That's my impression of it so far,
So you've never looked at relativity, yet have been posting in a relativity
newsgroup before. I suggest an education is in order
> but how could we tell what
>an object's velocity is relative to a stationary point in space?
You measure how far it moves in some period of time (or vice versa) and
divide distance travelled by time taken
>How could we know if anything is "stationary" in space?
Its all relative
Inertial
news:21eaa5be-e076-4c16...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>iow
>c is not relativistic to anything!
'relativistic to' is not a valid grammatical construct and is meaningless.
'relative to', however, is a valid phrase.
c *is* is the same relative to any (inertial) object. That is what
relativity theory says. c being a constant is a relativistic concept (i.e.
a concept from the theory of relativity)
>but to itself
>c is not relativistic !!
That makes even less grammatical sense
>see my threads about it
Don't bother looking .. porat is full of crap
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c7d801c$0$11123$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
| wrote in message news:8t7q765j9bm0q8mn5...@4ax.com...
Fuck off, moron.
BURT
Flow of light is absolute constant in the space but not for the moving
matter frame.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
Funny that .. he can't argue the physics and logic .. so just snips and runs
dlzc
On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
He can't possibly be full of crap. With the frequent expositions of
fecal matter, there has to be some void space.
David A. Smith
whoever
news:b633a4d3-1ee3-4960...@l38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>He can't possibly be full of crap. With the frequent expositions of
>fecal matter, there has to be some void space.
Unless of course, there is an infinite inexhaustible source of crap inside
him.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
dh
<nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>C is a constant
Relative to what?
>the velocity is always
>measured as c by *any* observer.
>
>"Evidence confirming an observation is
>evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
be constant. So are you saying that it's constant, or that it
somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
dh
<tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> IMO the speed of light is
>> constant relative to its *point of emission*.
>
>"Speed relative to a point" is nonsense.
Maybe to you, but not to me.
Neither does the concept that all light travels at the same
velocity relative to everything in the universe. It would have to
constantly be adjusting its velocity and could NOT be constant
relative to anything.
dh
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 8/31/10 10:45 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
>> follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
>> constant relative to its*point of emission*.
>
> The speed of light is c for all inertial observers.
>
> Regarding photons from the quantum mechanical "perspective",
>
> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
I've always heard they are emitted by electrons, even if the
electrons are in an atom with no charge.
> 2. photons propagate at c
Relative to what?
> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
I've always heard they are absorbed by electrons, even if the
electrons are in an atom with no charge.
dh
Thank you for that. You are the first person I've encountered
who hasn't acted as if all light has the same velocity relative
to everything else in the universe, which is impossible. How can
anyone think that it is possible?
Sam Wormley
> If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
> encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
> be constant. So are you saying that it's constant, or that it
> somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
The speed of light is c for all inertial observers. Light
speed appears to be and is defines as a fundamental physical
constant of nature. The meter is defined in terms of the
speed of light.
Regarding photons from the quantum mechanical "perspective",
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Photon momentum
Sam Wormley
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:57:08 -0500, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/31/10 10:45 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
>>> follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
>>> constant relative to its*point of emission*.
>>
>> The speed of light is c for all inertial observers.
>>
>> Regarding photons from the quantum mechanical "perspective",
>>
>> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
>
> I've always heard they are emitted by electrons, even if the
> electrons are in an atom with no charge.
Charge is an intrinsic property of electrons, as well as many
other leptons, quarks and bosons. See:
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~heroux/images/Particle_chart.jpg
>
>> 2. photons propagate at c
>
> Relative to what?
Relative to any and all inertial observers.
>
>> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>
> I've always heard they are absorbed by electrons, even if the
> electrons are in an atom with no charge.
>
Charge is an intrinsic property of electrons no matter where one
finds them.
Sam Wormley
Science is based on observation and testing of hypothesis. Accepting
what the data tells one instead of what wants to believe is at the
heart of science.
Observation show everytime that light propagates at c and is a
constant.
PD
It does not adjust itself.
There are two mental adjustments you have to make:
1. Speed is not an innate property of an object that is somehow
independent of the measurer's reference frame.
2. Speed in *most* cases will change if the reference frame changes,
but it does not change in quite the simple fashion (adding or
subtracting) that you may have been taught to believe in school. This
is exceedingly important in the case of light.
PD
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:12:01 +0100, "Androcles"
>
>
>
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in messagenews:8t7q765j9bm0q8mn5...@4ax.com...
I guess that depends on why you think it's impossible.
Let's say you have a bullet emitted from a gun held in a clamp fixed
to a table. The bullet emerges from the gun and has a speed of 800 m/s
with respect to the table. The bullet is headed toward a target that
is moving toward the table at 200 m/s. What do you think the speed of
the bullet with respect to the target is, and why?
PD
PD
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:04:24 -0500, Tom Roberts
>
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> IMO the speed of light is
> >> constant relative to its *point of emission*.
>
> >"Speed relative to a point" is nonsense.
>
> Maybe to you, but not to me.
Tom's statement should be read, "For someone who has an understanding
of speed that is consistent with observational measurements, 'speed
relative to a point' is nonsense." The problem is that the layperson's
concept of speed and how it works simply does not work as a general
rule, though it works as a superb approximation at low speeds that are
the customary experience.
No, it doesn't. This "would have to" is dependent on certain
assumptions about how speed works that, it turns out, are not right to
assume.
PD
PD
>
> >On 8/31/10 10:45 AM, dh@. wrote:
> >> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
> >> follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
> >> constant relative to its*point of emission*.
>
> > The speed of light is c for all inertial observers.
>
> > Regarding photons from the quantum mechanical "perspective",
>
> > 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
>
> I've always heard they are emitted by electrons, even if the
> electrons are in an atom with no charge.
Well, they have to be emitted and absorbed by protons, too. The
exchange of photons is what holds the electrons bound to the protons
in the atom.
Tom Roberts
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:04:24 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Speed is inherently measured relative to some COORDINATE SYSTEM.
>> In particular, speed is not measured relative to some
>> "point in space". Nor is it measured relative to some
>> object (but it can be measured relative to the rest frame
>> of a specified object).
>>> how could we tell what
>>> an object's velocity is relative to a stationary point in space?
>> There is no way to do that; indeed the question does not make sense,
>
> Neither does the concept that all light travels at the same
> velocity relative to everything in the universe.
Right. As I said above, "speed is inherently measured relative to some
COORDINATE SYSTEM", not relative to object(s).
Note that the concept that light travels with speed c relative to every inertial
frame (coordinate system) is perfectly self-consistent, and makes complete
sense, once one understands how those frames (coordinates) are interrelated.
Hint: they are related by Lorentz transforms, not Galilean transforms.
Hint2: your personal experience with how velocities add is not
relevant, because you have no experience with speeds approaching c.
> It would have to
> constantly be adjusting its velocity and could NOT be constant
> relative to anything.
----
> If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
> encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
> be constant.
----
> You are the first person I've encountered
> who hasn't acted as if all light has the same velocity relative
> to everything else in the universe, which is impossible.
[Androcles, to whom you addressed that third remark, has more
serious pathologies, but also does not understand this at all.]
You misunderstand. First, as I point out several times above, speed is relative
to COORDINATE SYSTEMS, not objects. Second, the statement that the speed of
light is c relative to all inertial frames is not really a statement about
light, and certainly does not mean "light adjusts its velocity". Rather this is
a statement about INERTIAL COORDINATE SYSTEMS, and how it "just so happens" that
in the world we inhabit their relationships are such that each of them measures
the value c for the vacuum speed of light. This is all quite logical, and
perfectly consistent, within the framework of relativity; it is just different
from what you seem to expect. Moreover, this is not "impossible" at all, it is
MEASURED.
You need to be more precise in your statements (e.g. distinguishing objects from
coordinates). But you also seem to have some pre-conceived notions about how
space and time are interrelated and how velocities combine, that are wrong; they
need to be corrected before you can understand this. Yes, this is subtle and
counter-intuitive, because your intuition was learned in a regime where this is
not important....
Tom Roberts
dh
McCullough) wrote:
>dh@. says...
>>
>> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
>>follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
>>constant relative to its *point of emission*.
>
>Speed is a coordinate-dependent quantity. If an object or signal
>travels from point A to point B, then the
>average speed is given by: D_AB/t_AB, where D_AB is the distance
>between A and B, and t_AB is the time required to travel that
>distance. Distance and time are both measured relative to a
>*coordinate* system. So speed is relative to a coordinate system,
>not relative to another object.
Or relative to both?
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:frkq769ndshn3bi76...@4ax.com...
>| On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:12:01 +0100, the following appeared
>| in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
>| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
Let's restore the question and answer:
[Androcles]
>The star is in elliptical orbit, moving toward and away from us.
>In other words, fast light (187 mps) emitted later overtakes slow light
>(185 mps) emitted earlier, if the star is far enough away.
[Me]
Nope; sorry. There's no such thing as "fast light" or "slow
light" except when comparing c in different media (such as
vacuum, air and glass). C is a constant in any given medium.
If a light emitter is moving radially with respect to the
observer the frequency differs from that measured at the
emitter (see "Doppler effect") but the velocity is always
measured as c by *any* observer.
>Sure, anytime.
>Anything else I can snip for you? I'm only too happy to oblige.
Sure. Snip your tiny pecker, then FOAD, troll.
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>C is a constant
>
> Relative to what?
Relative to any observer in any inertial frame (which means
"to everyone").
>>the velocity is always
>>measured as c by *any* observer.
> If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
>encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
>be constant. So are you saying that it's constant, or that it
>somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
It's constant, and it doesn't "adjust itself" or "get
adjusted" (whatever that may mean).
Do yourself a favor and study some relativity theory; it's
all been confirmed by observation and experiment. And no, it
doesn't follow "common sense", which is just too bad for
common sense.
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by PD
<thedrap...@gmail.com>:
That's only going to confuse him further, since if he
guesses 1000m/s he'll apply the additive nature of
"ordinary" velocities to light. Of course, you can now post
the *actual* additive velocity using SR, which isn't *quite*
1000m/s; that should complete the job. ;-)
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>:
Well, demonstrably he doesn't understand physics and is a
stranger to logic, so...
> .. so just snips and runs
Of course.
Androcles
<dh@.> wrote in message news:714t7615ud2ajsjus...@4ax.com...
Mass hysteria. Homo neanderthalensis believes what he is told to believe,
the few of us homo sapiens sapiens that can think for ourselves can never
overcome bigotry with logic. Pakistan is flooded by the grace of Allah. New
Orleans was flooded by hurricane Katrina, thank god. Port-au-Prince was
flattened by an earthquake, praise the lord. If the goddess mother nature
does anything naughty, god is to be thanked for the few that are saved. You
are surrounded by the indifferent and the insane in your ordinary life, but
the insanest bigoted morons are in this nest called "usenet", filled with
fanatics.
You ask how can anyone think that is possible? These creatures do not think,
they repeat what they are told and call it "education". They are sheeple,
when one bleats "baa" they all take up the echo. Welcome to Bedlam. I take a
sadistic pleasure in poking them with the cattle prod of logic with a dash
of invective vulgarity using taboo words to amuse myself. They have replied
to you, note the names of the insane.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:23264e6b-0a65-4d5d...@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Guessing isn't science, Phuckwit Duck.
Let's say you have a bullet emitted from a gun held in a clamp fixed
to a table. The bullet emerges from the gun and has a speed of 800 m/s
with respect to the table. The bullet is headed toward a target that
is moving toward the table at 200 m/s. What do you think the speed of
the bullet with respect to the target is, and why?
PD
Let's say you have a machine gun on a carousel, Phuckwit Duck,
and the tangential velocity of the gun is 200 m/s. The bullets emerge
from the gun and have a speed of 800 m/s with respect to the muzzle.
The target has a negligible velocity of 0.0001 m/s toward the carousel.
What do you "guess" the speed of the bullets with respect to the
target are, and why, Mr Phuckwit "Closing Speed" Duck ?
Oops, unfair question. Change the subject quickly.
Androcles
<dh@.> wrote in message news:cs6t76lfj79teq6bl...@4ax.com...
McCullough will try to obfuscate. He is not using Einstein's 2AB/(t'A-tA) =
c.
How far is it from A to A and how long does it take to get there?
In relativity, speed is go-stop-turnaround-return.
"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.
In agreement with experience we further deduce Einstein was prone to
persuasive rhetoric, aka bullshit.
Androcles
On Sep 1, 12:16 pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
>
> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >C is a constant
>
> Relative to what?
>
> >the velocity is always
> >measured as c by *any* observer.
>
> >"Evidence confirming an observation is
> >evidence that the observation is wrong."
> > - McNameless
>
> If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
> encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
> be constant. So are you saying that it's constant, or that it
> somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
It does not adjust itself.
There are two mental adjustments you have to make:
1. Speed is not an innate property of an object that is somehow
independent of the measurer's reference frame.
=========================================
You should tell that to Einstein, he says otherwise.
2. Speed in *most* cases will change if the reference frame changes,
but it does not change in quite the simple fashion (adding or
subtracting) that you may have been taught to believe in school. This
is exceedingly important in the case of light.
=============================================
Speed in *EVERY* case will change if the reference frame changes,
INCLUDING light, you dumb lying bastard.
Your mysticism is not important at all, shaman Phuckwit Duck.
PD
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:16:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by PD
Which is precisely the point. He'd of course want to ask "But WHY
isn't it exactly 1000 mph?" And the answer to that is, because it's
inconsistent with the laws of physics. The only reason it's been used
that way is that it seemed to work well enough for the precision of
the measurements. Well, that stopped being the case over a century
ago.
Androcles
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
| On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:31:09 +0100, the following appeared
| in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
|
| >
| >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
| >news:frkq769ndshn3bi76...@4ax.com...
| >| On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:12:01 +0100, the following appeared
| >| in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
| >| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
|
| Let's restore the question and answer:
Go on then, but restore ALL of it, not just the part you wanted to ignore,
you fuckin' bigot.
Androcles
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
| On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, the following appeared
| in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
|
| >On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
| ><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
| >
| >>C is a constant
| >
| > Relative to what?
|
| Relative to any observer in any inertial frame (which means
| "to everyone").
|
| >>the velocity is always
| >>measured as c by *any* observer.
|
| > If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
| >encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
| >be constant. So are you saying that it's constant, or that it
| >somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
|
| It's constant, and it doesn't "adjust itself" or "get
| adjusted" (whatever that may mean).
|
| Do yourself a favor and study some relativity theory; it's
| all been confirmed by observation and experiment. And no, it
| doesn't follow "common sense", which is just too bad for
| common sense.
Refer to this:
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?
Now fuck off and die, shaman bigot.
PD
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's a number close to, but not exactly, 1000.0001 m/s, Androcles, in
the target frame. I've already indicated how to calculate this number.
You being the one that would like to be called Dr. Parker with a
mathematics degree, I'm sure you can do the arithmetic.
PD
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not so. Measurements in documented experiments show that to be wrong.
> INCLUDING light, you dumb lying bastard.
> Your mysticism is not important at all, shaman Phuckwit Duck.
There's not a thing mysterious about it.
Sebastian Garth
> I've asked this in some of these groups before but didn't
> follow through, so I'm asking again. IMO the speed of light is
> constant relative to its *point of emission*. So if an object in
> space is moving "at" 1K miles per second (but relative to what?)
> and emits light in all directions the light will have a velocity
> of 186K miles per second relative to that point in space but the
> light moving in the same dirction as the object which emitted it
> will have a velocity of 185K miles per second relative to that
> object, and light moving in the opposite direction will have a
> velocity of 187K miles per second relative to the object.
>
> That's my impression of it so far, but how could we tell what
> an object's velocity is relative to a stationary point in space?
> How could we know if anything is "stationary" in space?
There is no preferred reference frame and thus no such thing as
"absolute position". The fact is, uniform straight-line motion is
something of an illusion - at least in the sense that, no matter what
reference frame to measure it is chosen, the "apparent" motion
(including zero net) is always "correct".
What really matters is acceleration, which is responsible for so
called relativistic effects. As a body accelerates (or decelerates),
the speed of light remains constant because, relative to any other
given reference frame, the difference is always compensated by either
an elongated, compressed, or equal length time quanta, relatively
speaking.
Now, if the propulsion of the body were to be cut off and the object
left to coast afterward (ie: without a change in speed or direction),
it would again be considered equally valid to declare that the body
was in fact motionless (WRT *some* other reference frame, eg: it's own
local frame) - nevermind if the has already been accelerated to 99.99%
c (WRT an arbitrary space-time coordinate) three times over!
Androcles
============================
Ok, then we'll use a better adjective: stupid, deranged, psychotic.
Your psychotic drivel is not important at all, shaman Phuckwit Duck.
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Measurements in documented experiments show that to be wrong." -- Phuckwit
Duck.
Androcles
============================================
Nonsense, you are guessing again; it is a machine gun, I said bulletS
(plural).
Pity you can't even read the question.
The answer is: 800 + 200.cos(omega t) m/s for t = 0 to period;
omega is in radians per second, the rotation rate of the carousel.
One rotation is one period.
I've already said the target velocity toward the carousel was negligible
to swamp any relativisitic drivel about composition of velocities, so
neglect it.
Pity you can't even read the question.
"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
Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Try again, Duck, but now I've given you the answer, how far is the target
from the carousel if the 1000 m/s bullet and the 600 m/s bullet emitted
earlier strike the target simultaneously?
Androcles
"Sebastian Garth" <sebasti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d88c5bd-a392-434c...@u6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
================================================
There is no preferred reference frame and thus no such thing as
"absolute velocity".
What really matters is whether you can prove your fuckin' bullshit.
PD
Nothing that agrees superbly with experimental results should be
considered stupid, deranged, or psychotic.
In fact, considering something that does agree with documented
experimental results to be stupid, deranged, or psychotic, is in
itself stupid, deranged, or psychotic.
Sebastian Garth
> "Sebastian Garth" <sebastianga...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ignoratio elenchi, no?
PD
You asked "What do you 'guess' the speed of the bullets with respect
to the target are, and why".
That is "with respect to the target", not with respect to the point
where the carousel is attached.
Heavens, if you don't remember what you say from hour to hour, why do
you bother saying it?
And no, the answer is not 800 + 200.cos(omega t) m/s for t=0 to
period.
That method of answer is close, but not equal to what we find in
experiment.
PD
>
> "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
>
> Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392-ba69-0a328320a...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Androcles
==============================================
You have a specific example, shithead?
In fact, considering something that does agree with documented
experimental results to be stupid, deranged, or psychotic, is in
itself stupid, deranged, or psychotic.
===============================================
Documented evidence:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Ignore it, "In fact" stupid deranged psychotic Duck. Put your head
up your arse and don't look.
> Your psychotic drivel is not important at all, shaman Phuckwit Duck.
>
> Ref:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> "Measurements in documented experiments show that to be wrong." --
> Phuckwit
> Duck.
>
> 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?
No answer was the stern reply.
Androcles
Your question was "What do you think the speed of the bullet with
respect to the target is, and why?"
==============================================
Pity you can't even read, lying bastard. My question was
What do you "guess" the speed of the bullets with respect to the
target are, and why, Mr Phuckwit "Closing Speed" Duck ?
And it is still there, you deranged cretin.
==============================================
Not "bulletS". And "with respect to the target", not with respect to
the point the carousel is anchored to.
==============================================
Pity you can't even read, lying bastard. My question was
What do you "guess" the speed of the bullets with respect to the
target are, and why, Mr Phuckwit "Closing Speed" Duck ?
And it is still there, you deranged cretin.
==============================================
If you can't remember from one hour to the next what you say yourself,
why do you bother saying anything?
==============================================
Pity you can't even read, lying bastard. My question was
What do you "guess" the speed of the bullets with respect to the
target are, and why, Mr Phuckwit "Closing Speed" Duck ?
And it is still there, you deranged cretin.
>
> "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
>
> Ref: 571b8ace-cca8-4392-ba69-0a328320a...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
Androcles
Ignoratio elenchi, no?
================================================
What really matters is whether you can prove your fuckin' bullshit,
ignoramus.
PD
Sure. You've been given several examples many times. They're in the
FAQ.
>
> In fact, considering something that does agree with documented
> experimental results to be stupid, deranged, or psychotic, is in
> itself stupid, deranged, or psychotic.
> ===============================================
> Documented evidence:
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
This disagrees with relativity? How so?
> Ignore it, "In fact" stupid deranged psychotic Duck. Put your head
> up your arse and don't look.
>
> > Your psychotic drivel is not important at all, shaman Phuckwit Duck.
>
> > Ref:
> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> > "Measurements in documented experiments show that to be wrong." --
> > Phuckwit
> > Duck.
>
> > 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?
He didn't say that, and it's a pity you cannot comprehend what he did
say.
Androcles
===========================================
Give the answer then, instead of saying "not", you stupid fuck!
Androcles
================================================
Ok... will this one do, as it's in the FAQ ?
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
The real data is here:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
>
> In fact, considering something that does agree with documented
> experimental results to be stupid, deranged, or psychotic, is in
> itself stupid, deranged, or psychotic.
> ===============================================
> Documented evidence:
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
This disagrees with relativity? How so?
======================================
That's Newtonian Mechanics 501, Duck. Much too advanced for you.
Get back to the gun on the carousel and learn the basics before you
learn about eccentricity = sqrt (1 - b^2/a^2).
> Ignore it, "In fact" stupid deranged psychotic Duck. Put your head
> up your arse and don't look.
>
> > Your psychotic drivel is not important at all, shaman Phuckwit Duck.
>
> > Ref:
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
> > "Measurements in documented experiments show that to be wrong." --
> > Phuckwit
> > Duck.
>
> > 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?
He didn't say that, and it's a pity you cannot comprehend what he did
say.
=================================================
Einstein didn't write this?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
Amazing. I wonder who did...
Still, you can't read algebra, can you?
That's why you are "Phuckwit" Duck, Phuckwit Duck.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a *BLIND* duck to
appear]
BOOM! BOOM!
Androcles
===============================================
Duck, I realise I've omitted you from my list of deranged psychotics.
My apologies, I've now tacked you on the end. The list is not in
chronological order... time dilation, y'know.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm
Inertial
>On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>C is a constant
>
> Relative to what?
Anything and everything .. ie in all inertial frames of reference
>>the velocity is always
>>measured as c by *any* observer.
>>
>>"Evidence confirming an observation is
>>evidence that the observation is wrong."
>> - McNameless
>
> If light adjusts its velocity
It doesn't .. its speed is c
>so it reaches everything it
>encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
>be constant.
If it is always c it is constant.
> So are you saying that it's constant,
That is what 'C is constant' means
> somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
No
Androcles
"Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
news:4c7eeeea$0$28666$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
| wrote in message news:oi2t761smpkm43oa8...@4ax.com...
| >
| >On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
| ><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
| >
| >>C is a constant
| >
| > Relative to what?
|
| Anything and everything .. ie in all inertial frames of reference
Assertion carries no weight. Prove it, you stupid fuck.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The speed of light is relative and constant to space.
Matter moves slower with light. Between the two they create
a slower or faster changing distance seperation above
and below light speed.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> news:21eaa5be-e076-4c16...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >iow
> >c is not relativistic to anything!
>
> 'relativistic to' is not a valid grammatical construct and is meaningless.
>
> 'relative to', however, is a valid phrase.
>
> c *is* is the same relative to any (inertial) object. That is what
> relativity theory says. c being a constant is a relativistic concept (i.e.
> a concept from the theory of relativity)
>
> >but to itself
> >c is not relativistic !!
>
> That makes even less grammatical sense
>
> >see my threads about it
>
> Don't bother looking .. porat is full of crap
--------------------
Hi psycho Josef Goebbels
--------------------------
Y.Porat
> Dear Inertial:
>
> On Aug 31, 3:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> >news:21eaa5be-e076-4c16...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >iow
> > >c is not relativistic to anything!
>
> > 'relativistic to' is not a valid grammatical
> > construct and is meaningless.
>
> > 'relative to', however, is a valid phrase.
>
> > c *is* is the same relative to any (inertial)
> > object. That is what relativity theory says.
> > c being a constant is a relativistic concept
> > (i.e. a concept from the theory of relativity)
>
> > >but to itself
> > >c is not relativistic !!
>
> > That makes even less grammatical sense
>
> > >see my threads about it
>
> > Don't bother looking .. porat is full of crap
>
> fecal matter, there has to be some void space.
>
> David A. Smith
-------------------
please let it be clear
is c relativistic or not
if yes
to relate things is to compare them !!
iow in physics
while we say relativistic
you dont deal with family relations
we dont ask if c is a son or mother of something or a cousin of
something
you deal with NUMERIC relations
so c is relativistic to what ???
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
Y.Porat
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:31:09 +0100, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
>
>
>
> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> >| On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:12:01 +0100, the following appeared
> >| in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
> >| <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
>
> Let's restore the question and answer:
>
>
> >The star is in elliptical orbit, moving toward and away from us.
> >In other words, fast light (187 mps) emitted later overtakes slow light
> >(185 mps) emitted earlier, if the star is far enough away.
>
>
> Nope; sorry. There's no such thing as "fast light" or "slow
> light" except when comparing c in different media (such as
> vacuum, air and glass). C is a constant in any given medium.
> If a light emitter is moving radially with respect to the
> observer the frequency differs from that measured at the
> emitter (see "Doppler effect") but the velocity is always
> measured as c by *any* observer.
>
> >Anything else I can snip for you? I'm only too happy to oblige.
>
> Sure. Snip your tiny pecker, then FOAD, troll.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
----------------
so ??
is c relativistic
(not in the sense of family relations !)
or not ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
Y.Porat
------------------------
Androcles
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:058ca3bc-1b09-462e...@a17g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
==========================
Please let it be clear.
English is not your language and you refuse to learn it.
Do mome raths outgrabe, you fuckin' jabberwock? Yes or no?
Please let it be clear.
Y.Porat
> On 9/1/10 12:16 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
> > If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
> > encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
> > somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
>
> speed appears to be and is defines as a fundamental physical
> constant of nature. The meter is defined in terms of the
> speed of light.
>
> Regarding photons from the quantum mechanical "perspective",
>
> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
> 2. photons propagate at c
> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>
> Photon momentum
> p = hν/c = h/λ
>
> Photon Energy
> E = hν
------------------
so c is relativistic or not?
(not inthe sense of family relations?
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------
Androcles
Y.Porat
------------------------
please Let It Be cLear?????
eBglish is not your langAuUage and you refuse to learn it????
Do moMe rAths outGrabe, you fuckinŹ jabberwock!! Yes or no!!!
Please let it be clear????
====================
Androcles
please Let It Be cLear?????
eBglish is not your langAuUage and you refuse to learn it????
Do moMe rAths outGrabe, you fuckin¬ jabberwock!! Yes or no!!!
Y.Porat
> On Sep 1, 12:16 pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
>
> > <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >C is a constant
>
> > Relative to what?
>
> > >measured as c by *any* observer.
>
> > >evidence that the observation is wrong."
> > > - McNameless
>
> > encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
> > be constant. So are you saying that it's constant, or that it
> > somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
>
> There are two mental adjustments you have to make:
> 1. Speed is not an innate property of an object that is somehow
> independent of the measurer's reference frame.
> but it does not change in quite the simple fashion (adding or
> subtracting) that you may have been taught to believe in school. This
> is exceedingly important in the case of light.
---------------------
words salad!! as usual
that say nothing !!
PD is not a physicist
he is a fucken crook loawyer personal politician impster !!
as usual for the moron crook
PD = inertial
not just a crook
a moron professional crook !!
and a thief as well
Y.P
---------------------
Androcles
please Let It Be cLear?????
eBglish is not your langAuUage and you refuse to learn it????
Do moMe rAths outGrabe, you fuckinŹ jabberwock!! Yes or no!!!
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Please let it be clear????
> ====================
now it is crystal clear
Andro
is a registered Psychopath !!!
btw
the combination of a psycho with a crook
is extremely dangerous and harmful !! (:-)
Y.P
----------------
Androcles
> Please let it be clear????
> ====================
now it is crystal clear
Andro
is a registered Psychopath !!!
btw
the combination of a psycho with a crook
is extremely dangerous and harmful !! (:-)
================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky
Do moMe rAths outGrabe, you fuckinŹ jabberwock!! Yes or no!!!
Y.Porat
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
> >On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
> ><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >>C is a constant
>
> > Relative to what?
>
> "to everyone").
>
> >>the velocity is always
> >>measured as c by *any* observer.
> >encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
> >be constant. So are you saying that it's constant, or that it
> >somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
>
> adjusted" (whatever that may mean).
>
> Do yourself a favor and study some relativity theory; it's
> all been confirmed by observation and experiment. And no, it
> doesn't follow "common sense", which is just too bad for
> common sense.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
-------------------
so
c is a CONSTANT
and relativistic to nothing but to itself
AND THAT IS BY DEFINITION !!
got it blockheads retarded imbeciles crooks
let all retarded crooks know
YOU CANT DO ANY PHYSICS
UNLESS YOU CAN BASE IT ON SOME CONSTANTS!!
if you dont have constants in your physics
(SCIENCE !!)-
you are floating in a hassles chaos
a child should understand it !!
and if it is aconstant
it is related toitself only
other things can be related to it
but c itself is relativistic to itself only.
it is a base to relativity
but not relativistic
a constant is not relativistic
even in relativity theory !!!
i just wonder
why is it such a difficult issue for
some people to understand ??
provided they are not dumb or professional crooks !??
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
Inertial
news:f0620e44-06ca-4c7d...@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 1, 10:19 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
You've asked this and been given the answer .. yet you refuse to listen to
any answers until someone happens to tell you what you want to hear.
This is NOT how to learn.
>(not in the sense of family relations !)
Your use of the word 'relativistic ' is not correct in ANY sense. You've
been given the dictionary physics meaning of the term and you ignore it.
This is NOT how to learn.
Inertial
news:058ca3bc-1b09-462e...@a17g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>please let it be clear
>
>is c relativistic or not
You've been told. The notion of c being a constant in all frames is
relativistic. 'c' is a relativistic speed.
>if yes
>
>to relate things is to compare them !!
'relativistic' does not mean 'to relate things'.
You've been given the dictionary physics meanings of the term 'relativistic'
(see below as well). It does NOT mean what you want it to.
It does NOT mean 'must have different values for different observers'.
It does NOT mean 'has a gamma factor in it'
>iow in physics
>while we say relativistic
See the dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relativistic
==
Definition of RELATIVISTIC
1: of, relating to, or characterized by relativity or relativism
2: moving at a velocity such that there is a significant change in
properties (as mass) in accordance with the theory of relativity <a
relativistic electron>
==
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0699030#m_en_gb0699030
==
Physics
accurately described only by the theory of relativity
==
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relativistic
==
a. Of, relating to, or resulting from speeds approaching the speed of light:
relativistic increase in mass.
b. Having to do with or based on the theory of relativity: relativistic
mechanics.
==
==
1. (Physics / General Physics) Physics having or involving a speed close to
that of light so that the behaviour is described by the theory of relativity
rather than by Newtonian mechanics a relativistic electron a relativistic
velocity
2. (Physics / General Physics) Physics of, concerned with, or involving
relativity
==
==
relativistic - relating or subject to the special or the general theory of
relativity; "relativistic quantum mechanics"; "relativistic increase in
mass"; "radiation from relativistic particles"
==
> you dont deal with family relations
>we dont ask if c is a son or mother of something or a cousin of
>something
That is not what relativistic means in any dictionary .. you are confusing
it with 'related to'
>you deal with NUMERIC relations
>so c is relativistic to what ???
'relativistic to' doesn't make grammatical sense .. 'relativistic' is an
adjective. You are confusing it with 'relative to'
You CAN say the speed of light is c 'relative to' every inertial frame of
reference
Really .. as someone for whom English is clearly not his native language and
who has trouble using correct words and write numerous and frequent
appallingly bad sentences .. you are not in a position to be dictating the
meaning of English words and how they are to be used.
Inertial
news:8a2e9672-9e3d-49b3...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Sep 1, 8:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It does not adjust itself.
>> There are two mental adjustments you have to make:
>> 1. Speed is not an innate property of an object that is somehow
>> independent of the measurer's reference frame.
>> 2. Speed in *most* cases will change if the reference frame changes,
>> but it does not change in quite the simple fashion (adding or
>> subtracting) that you may have been taught to believe in school. This
>> is exceedingly important in the case of light.
>
>---------------------
> words salad!! as usual
No .. you simply cannot understand well-formed English, especially when it
relates to physics. English is not your native language and you are quite
frankly abysmal at it.
> that say nothing !!
No .. you simply understood nothing. There is a big difference.
[snip more unfounded libellous allegations from moron Porat]
Inertial
news:2e168030-b45a-48ed...@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
YEs .. that is what the theory of relativity says .. and so c being constant
is relativistic
>and relativistic to nothing but to itself
'relativistic to' is grammatical nonsense. There is no such valid
combination of words
You confuse it with 'related to' and 'relative to'
> AND THAT IS BY DEFINITION !!
No .. you've been given the definitions and deliberately ignored them
[snip another porat rant]
Y.Porat
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:04:24 -0500, Tom Roberts
> > <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Speed is inherently ht travels at the same
> > velocity relative to everything in the universe.
>
> Right. As I said above, "speed is inherently measured relative to some
> COORDINATE SYSTEM", not relative to object(s).
------------------
imbecile chemist philosopher
in real physics we dont have points
we have objects !!
a point is a mathematical concept
it is not a physical concept
our physical world i snot comopsed of points
point are not natures invention
it is a human invention!!
------------------------------
>
> Note that the concept that light travels with speed c relative to every inertial
> frame
not only to an inertial idiot moron
it is constant even for a 'relativistic frame !!
bu thtat does not make it relativistic!!
a relativistic formul uses the multiplication sign in it
BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE
MULTIPLICATION SIGN TO BE RELATIVISTIC!!
got ot moron parrot shameless pig ??
---------------------
(coordinate system) is perfectly self-consistent, and makes complete
> sense, once one understands how those frames (coordinates) are interrelated.
------------
do you moron crook consider yourself understanding it ??
not any crook lawyer with a nice language
can consider himsef a teacher of physics !!
you are nothing but an ass leakier of a gange of gangsters here
---------------------
-----------------------
>
> Hint: they are related by Lorentz transforms, not Galilean transforms.
--------------
HINT
what is the Lorentz transformation for -----> c??
imbecile moron shameless crook !!!??
Y.Porat
----------------------------
PD
My question again: This disagrees with relativity? How so?
PD
1000.0000999999999988888887777777777790123458024691358010973...m/s
dlzc
On Sep 1, 10:16 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> -------------------
> please let it be clear
>
> is c relativistic or not
c is a frame dependent (as far as acceleration), established,
dimensioned constant, for the speed of light in a vacuum.
"Relativistic" describes motion of objects at significant fractions of
the speed of light. c is not relativistic, since it is a mandated
constant. But c does "define" what it is to be relativistic.
> if yes
No.
> to relate things is to compare them !!
This statement is true, but does not apply here.
> iow in physics
> while we say relativistic
> you dont deal with family relations
> we dont ask if c is a son or mother of something
> or a cousin of something
>
> you deal with NUMERIC relations
>
> so c is relativistic to what ???
It isn't. Or if you want to go out on a tenuous limb, "relative to
any inertial frame".
The word you need to be using is "relative", not "relativistic", based
on your questions. Otherwise you will only ever attract those that
are interested in correcting your grammar.
David A. Smith
Inertial
news:6eb0ff33-4c7e-4140...@s17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>"Relativistic" describes motion of objects at significant fractions of
> the speed of light.
Or the behaviour of 'objects' at such speeds. That is one of its meanings.
"Relativistic" also applies as a description of the speed itself .. ie a
relativistic speed is one that is a significant fraction of c ... And 'c' is
a very significant fraction of c .. so c is a relativistic speed :)
"Relativistic" also means 'to do with relativity' .. and the constancy of c
in all inertial frames is a relativistic concept.
All this is really a matter of linguistics and looking up a dictionary :).
Porat ignores what the dictionaries say, and uses the word both incorrectly
and ungrammatically.
PD
Porat is confused about "relative" and "relativistic". Thus any
sentence he utters that uses either of those words tends to be jumbled
and becomes nonsensical. This must be frustrating to him, because to
him, the question is obvious, but his difficulty with the language
makes it incomprehensible.
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea75e649-286e-4e20...@u6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
=========================================
My answer again: Get back to the gun on the carousel and learn the basics.
Documented evidence takes a trained eye to understand.
Androcles
1000.0000999999999988888887777777777790123458024691358010973...m/s
=============================================
Correct for ONE bullet to within the accuracy of your computer.
Pity you can't even read the question, which refers to a machine gun.
What about the other N-1 bullets?
Being as stupid as you are, here is a picture of a carousel.
http://www.funfairgames.net/for_hire/assets/images/carousel.jpg
Let's say you have a machine gun on a carousel, Phuckwit Duck,
http://www.2dayblog.com/images/2006_november/mini_machine_gun.jpg
and the tangential velocity of the gun is 200 m/s.
The bullets emerge
from the gun and have a speed of 800 m/s with respect to the muzzle.
The target has a negligible velocity of 0.0001 m/s toward the carousel.
So ONE bullet has a velocity of 1000 m/s.
A DIFFERENT bullet fired half a period later when the gun is moving away
from the target (with an opening speed) has a velocity of... ??? m/s.
What do you "guess" the speed of the bullets with respect to the
target are, and why, Mr Very Stupid Phuckwit "Closing Speed" Duck ?
Hint:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/b/b2/Ch15-figure02.png
PD
Sorry, but your answer about the carousel was WRONG. I gave you the
correct answer.
The answer I gave is consistent with the rule that works in all
experimental conditions known so far.
What you call "the basics" are not consistent with all experimental
results.
PD
Boondoggle alert.
Desertphile
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
> <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >C is a constant
>
> Relative to what?
>
> >the velocity is always
> >measured as c by *any* observer.
> If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
> encounters at 186K miles per second
No.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:04:24 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjro...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> how could we tell what
> >> an object's velocity is relative to a stationary point in space?
>> There is no way to do that; indeed the question does not make sense,
> Neither does the concept that all light travels at the same
> velocity relative to everything in the universe.
It is an observed fact.
> It would have to
> constantly be adjusting its velocity
No.
> and could NOT be constant
> relative to anything.
Androcles
============================================
You failed to read the question, idiot. Try again.
Androcles
Boondoggle alert.
=================
Bad guess, "Boondoggle alert" is not a velocity. Try again, only this time
read the quite simple physics question a 14-year-old can answer easily.
Maybe you can answer this instead:
What is the velocity of a piston shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Engine.gif
or here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/loco2.gif
PD
"Now that I have your attention, let's see if I can keep you busy just
for the hell of it."
No thanks. Nice trolling though.
Androcles
================================
So you have no answer.
"I've lost interest. Foam and blather and waste all the time you want.
You're not getting anywhere." -- Phuckwit Duck
(Meaning "I lost that argument, those grapes are sour".)
Ref: d23006a4-4a88-4efb...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
Run away, coward.
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:a6dt76p5mk4rjps2h...@4ax.com...
>| On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:31:09 +0100, the following appeared
>| in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
>| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
>|
>| >
>| >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>| >news:frkq769ndshn3bi76...@4ax.com...
>| >| On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:12:01 +0100, the following appeared
>| >| in sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
>| >| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
>|
>| Let's restore the question and answer:
>
>Go on then, but restore ALL of it, not just the part you wanted to ignore,
>you fuckin' bigot.
I only needed to restore the part that was in error. Given
that error the rest was irrelevant.
You're welcome.
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by PD
<thedrap...@gmail.com>:
>On Sep 1, 3:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:16:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by PD
>> <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>:
>> >Let's say you have a bullet emitted from a gun held in a clamp fixed
>> >to a table. The bullet emerges from the gun and has a speed of 800 m/s
>> >with respect to the table. The bullet is headed toward a target that
>> >is moving toward the table at 200 m/s. What do you think the speed of
>> >the bullet with respect to the target is, and why?
>>
>> That's only going to confuse him further, since if he
>> guesses 1000m/s he'll apply the additive nature of
>> "ordinary" velocities to light. Of course, you can now post
>> the *actual* additive velocity using SR, which isn't *quite*
>> 1000m/s; that should complete the job. ;-)
>
>Which is precisely the point. He'd of course want to ask "But WHY
>isn't it exactly 1000 mph?" And the answer to that is, because it's
>inconsistent with the laws of physics. The only reason it's been used
>that way is that it seemed to work well enough for the precision of
>the measurements. Well, that stopped being the case over a century
>ago.
True, although for calculations at "normal" velocities the
Newtonian formulae work fine.
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_aa>:
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:bcdt76d6s6iopctu2...@4ax.com...
>| On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:16:44 -0400, the following appeared
>| in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>|
>| >On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:14:43 -0700, Bob Casanova
>| ><nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>| >
>| >>C is a constant
>| >
>| > Relative to what?
>|
>| Relative to any observer in any inertial frame (which means
>| "to everyone").
>|
>| >>the velocity is always
>| >>measured as c by *any* observer.
>|
>| > If light adjusts its velocity so it reaches everything it
>| >encounters at 186K miles per second, then it necessarily can not
>| >be constant. So are you saying that it's constant, or that it
>| >somehow adjusts itself or gets adjusted by something else?
>|
>| It's constant, and it doesn't "adjust itself" or "get
>| adjusted" (whatever that may mean).
>|
>| Do yourself a favor and study some relativity theory; it's
>| all been confirmed by observation and experiment. And no, it
>| doesn't follow "common sense", which is just too bad for
>| common sense.
>
>Refer to this:
> 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?
I repeat for your benefit:
Do yourself a favor and study some relativity theory; it's
all been confirmed by observation and experiment. And no, it
doesn't follow "common sense", which is just too bad for
common sense.
>Now fuck off and die, shaman bigot.
Shamans assert things which aren't verified by observation
and experiment; SR has been so verified multiple times.
Bigots despise others due to characteristics beyond their
control. Are you saying that your ignorance is beyond your
control?