No object in Space has a Speed...and that includes light.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Think about it!

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 1:11:07 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Think about it!

v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1)

Think about it.

[Poutnik]

On 07/27/2016 09:11 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> Think about it!

Let us know if you were able to persuade the cops about it,
when you had violated the speed limit.

[HGW.]

They measured my relative speed, idiot!



--

[HGW.]

Let me ignore your stupidity and explain as though to a monkey.

Consider an element in a ray of laser light in space.
It is inertial. Its source is moving away from it at speed c. Its
eventual target is approaching it at c. It is going nowhere because
space is infinite.

Now, if two differently moving targets are moving towards it, one cannot
see how the wavelength they measure will not be different solely because
of their different speeds relative to the light.


--

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:
>
> On 28/07/16 05:19, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 1:11:07 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > >
> > > Think about it!
> >
> > v = (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1)
> >
> > Think about it.
>
> Let me ignore your stupidity and explain as though to a monkey.

You have never been able to explain anything that made any rational sense,
so don't kid yourself.

> Consider an element in a ray of laser light in space.
> It is inertial. Its source is moving away from it at speed c.

You don't know that. And since NOTHING material can move at speed c, you
are spouting pure baloney.

> Its eventual target is approaching it at c.

Wrong. Since the speed of the target is (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), and since
t2 - t1 approaches zero as the speed of light is approached, and x2 - x1
approaches zero under the same circumstance, the speed of the target
approaches 0/0.

> It is going nowhere because space is infinite.

That's even dumb if you were right about the above, which you're not.

> Now, if two differently moving targets are moving towards it, one cannot
> see how the wavelength they measure will not be different solely because
> of their different speeds relative to the light.

Who is this fabled "one"? And how can "one" at the source see a ray of
light moving directly away from it. You just proved once again that you
are stupider than dirt.

[Poutnik]

Dne 28/07/2016 v 00:28 HGW. napsal(a):

Like if speed had been absolute, idiot.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[HGW.]

On 28/07/16 14:12, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:

>>> Think about it.
>>
>> Let me ignore your stupidity and explain as though to a monkey.
>
> You have never been able to explain anything that made any rational sense,
> so don't kid yourself.

This subject is obviously far too hard for you.

>> Consider an element in a ray of laser light in space.
>> It is inertial. Its source is moving away from it at speed c.
>
> You don't know that. And since NOTHING material can move at speed c, you
> are spouting pure baloney.

Light in transit in deep space has no 'speed'. Objects are moving
relative to it. The same applies to any object.

>> Its eventual target is approaching it at c.
>
> Wrong. Since the speed of the target is (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), and since
> t2 - t1 approaches zero as the speed of light is approached, and x2 - x1
> approaches zero under the same circumstance, the speed of the target
> approaches 0/0.

So you are saying that light never reaches a target...You should apply
for a Nobel for that discovery..

>> It is going nowhere because space is infinite.
>
> That's even dumb if you were right about the above, which you're not.

I am right and what I said is not dumb.

>> Now, if two differently moving targets are moving towards it, one cannot
>> see how the wavelength they measure will not be different solely because
>> of their different speeds relative to the light.
>
> Who is this fabled "one"? And how can "one" at the source see a ray of
> light moving directly away from it. You just proved once again that you
> are stupider than dirt.

Well quite obviously their different movements cannot affect the light
they are both approaching at different speeds.



--

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/27/2016 5:36 PM, HGW. wrote:
> Consider an element in a ray of laser light in space.
> It is inertial. Its source is moving away from it at speed c. Its
> eventual target is approaching it at c. It is going nowhere because
> space is infinite.

???? When you say "going nowhere" I assume you are thinking "There is no
reference boundary in space to measure speed against, therefore it is
not going anywhere." Really?

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 4:04:01 AM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:
>
> On 28/07/16 14:12, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-6, HGW. wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me ignore your stupidity and explain as though to a monkey.
> >
> > You have never been able to explain anything that made any rational sense,
> > so don't kid yourself.
>
> This subject is obviously far too hard for you.

This subject is abysmally stupid, which is all you ever achieve.

> > > Consider an element in a ray of laser light in space.
> > > It is inertial. Its source is moving away from it at speed c.
> >
> > You don't know that. And since NOTHING material can move at speed c, you
> > are spouting pure baloney.
>
> Light in transit in deep space has no 'speed'.

Idiotic assertion.

> Objects are moving relative to it. The same applies to any object.

Since no one is or can be moving at c, your assertion is pure baloney.

> > > Its eventual target is approaching it at c.
> >
> > Wrong. Since the speed of the target is (x2 - x1)/(t2 - t1), and since
> > t2 - t1 approaches zero as the speed of light is approached, and x2 - x1
> > approaches zero under the same circumstance, the speed of the target
> > approaches 0/0.
>
> So you are saying that light never reaches a target...You should apply
> for a Nobel for that discovery..

No, abysmal idiot. Where did you learn such asinine mathematics. You seem
stupidly unaware that 0/0 is undefined.

> > > It is going nowhere because space is infinite.
> >
> > That's even dumb if you were right about the above, which you're not.
>
> I am right and what I said is not dumb.

Only another abysmal idiot would agree with you.

> > > Now, if two differently moving targets are moving towards it, one cannot
> > > see how the wavelength they measure will not be different solely because
> > > of their different speeds relative to the light.
> >
> > Who is this fabled "one"? And how can "one" at the source see a ray of
> > light moving directly away from it. You just proved once again that you
> > are stupider than dirt.
>
> Well quite obviously their different movements cannot affect the light
> they are both approaching at different speeds.

I'm glad you now agree that the speed of light is not affected by the motion
of either the source or the receiver. It's time to pull the plug and drain
your BaThWater.

[HGW.]

On 28/07/16 23:48, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/27/2016 5:36 PM, HGW. wrote:
>> Consider an element in a ray of laser light in space.
>> It is inertial. Its source is moving away from it at speed c. Its
>> eventual target is approaching it at c. It is going nowhere because
>> space is infinite.
>
> ???? When you say "going nowhere" I assume you are thinking "There is no
> reference boundary in space to measure speed against, therefore it is
> not going anywhere." Really?

At last someone here is getting the message....



--

[HGW.]

On 29/07/16 01:11, Poor little Gary Harnagel wrote:

>>>> Consider an element in a ray of laser light in space. It is
>>>> inertial. Its source is moving away from it at speed c.
>>>
>>> You don't know that. And since NOTHING material can move at
>>> speed c, you are spouting pure baloney.
>>
>> Light in transit in deep space has no 'speed'.
>
> Idiotic assertion.
>
>> Objects are moving relative to it. The same applies to any object.
>
> Since no one is or can be moving at c, your assertion is pure
> baloney.
>

>> So you are saying that light never reaches a target...You should
>> apply for a Nobel for that discovery..
>
> No, abysmal idiot. Where did you learn such asinine mathematics.
> You seem stupidly unaware that 0/0 is undefined.

Poor little gary is demonstrating that he does not understand he
principle of relativity at all. He seems to still be well under the
influence of an absolute reference frame.

little gary, when you drive your car on a highway at constant speed, are
you moving towards the mountain in the distance or is it moving towards you?

>>>> Now, if two differently moving targets are moving towards it,
>>>> one cannot see how the wavelength they measure will not be
>>>> different solely because of their different speeds relative to
>>>> the light.
>>>
>>> Who is this fabled "one"? And how can "one" at the source see a
>>> ray of light moving directly away from it. You just proved once
>>> again that you are stupider than dirt.
>>
>> Well quite obviously their different movements cannot affect the
>> light they are both approaching at different speeds.
>
> I'm glad you now agree that the speed of light is not affected by the
> motion of either the source or the receiver. It's time to pull the
> plug and drain your BaThWater.

Here's something to really make you think.
You find yourself floating freely around in space. You can see lots of
other objects that are moving relatively to you.
They all 'have' +KE in your frame (meaning you could harness that energy
is you stopped them).
Where did it all come from?
>


--

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 2:11:07 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Think about it!

Mostly Correct: Space time itself is kinetic Energy with a V = c

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/imgmec/rke.gif

http://www.indiana.edu/~minimal/archive/Triply/genus3/PLines/web/600b.png

E = (M*V^2)/2

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 6:24:06 PM UTC-5, HGW. wrote:

> Here's something to really make you think.
> You find yourself floating freely around in space. You can see lots of
> other objects that are moving relatively to you.
> They all 'have' +KE in your frame (meaning you could harness that energy
> is you stopped them).
> Where did it all come from?

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 28/07/16 15:18, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 28/07/2016 v 00:28 HGW. napsal(a):
>> On 28/07/16 05:38, Poutnik wrote:
>>> On 07/27/2016 09:11 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Think about it!
>>>
>>> Let us know if you were able to persuade the cops about it,
>>> when you had violated the speed limit.
>>
>> They measured my relative speed, idiot!
>>
> Like if speed had been absolute, idiot.

Here's something more for you to think about.

You find yourself floating freely around in space. There are lots of
other objects moving relatively to you.
They all 'have' momentum relative to you.

Now, if the universe is infinite, the total momentum must be zero. You
then accelerate to another inertial state. The total momentum should
still be zero.
If that is not true, then the universe cannot be infinite. It must have
a definite central point, about which the total momentum is zero.

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes, I'm getting the message you truly expect people to buy that.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

The CENTRAL Point is Not a POINT....

It is Spatially Distributed
It is shaped like This

http://www.indiana.edu/~minimal/archive/Triply/genus3/PLines/web/600b.png

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Bodkin you disappoint me... just as I was thinking you had finally
grasped a basic principle of physics....but no! You have proved you are
still just a very ordinary aetherist at heart
.....but I suppose that's only to be expected since Einstein was also
one of those.

[Odd Bodkin]

Dialog with Henry
in One Act
[HENRY adjusts his oxygen cannula and flicks an empty dog food can off
the porch into the weeds.]
HENRY: You know, the interior of the earth is made of cold mud.
GUEST: What? You believe that?
HENRY: Of course I believe it. All true geologists believe it. Except
for the misinformed rabble who think it's hollow.
GUEST: I think the number of people who believe it's hollow is probably
very small. I think most people believe there is a mantle surrounding a
hot, solid metallic core.
HENRY: All the data support cold mud, and there's not a stick of data
supporting this ridiculous metallic core idea! If it were metallic,
there would very likely be some sort of magnetic field.
GUEST: Pretty sure there is a magnetic field.
HENRY: Impossible. The magnetic field would be too small to measure.
GUEST: Well, I have a compass right here....
HENRY: You mean a cold mud detector?
[About a half a minute of silence while the two of them watch flies
swarm around the can of dog food.]
GUEST: You just like to make stuff up to see what people will say, don't
you?
HENRY: Of course! What else am I going to do with all my time?
GUEST: Well, you could look up some facts, I suppose, to make what you
say sound a little less ridiculous.
HENRY: That's far too much work for someone as important as me. I have
to defend myself against people like you who have stolen [points to the
compass in GUEST'S hand] my patent for a cold mud detector.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/07/16 05:13, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 1:54 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>>> At last someone here is getting the message....
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm getting the message you truly expect people to buy that.
>>
>> Bodkin you disappoint me... just as I was thinking you had finally
>> grasped a basic principle of physics....but no! You have proved you are
>> still just a very ordinary aetherist at heart
>> .....but I suppose that's only to be expected since Einstein was also
>> one of those.
>
> Dialog with Henry
> in One Act
> [HENRY adjusts his oxygen cannula and flicks an empty dog food can off
> the porch into the weeds.]
> HENRY: You know, the interior of the earth is made of cold mud.

<rest of weak joke deleted...>

Bodkin, are you not aware that Einstein's whole theory is based on the
postulate (which is another word for 'assumption') that all light from
all sources miraculously finds a common speed relative to everything?

Are you completely oblivious to the fact that, in 1905, the aether was
the assumed unifier of light from all sources and that the LTs would
only result in observer independence of light speed IF such unification
had already occurred.
Are you not aware that Einstein plagiarized his whole theory by simply
translating Poincare's french publication almost word for word... except
that he replaced the aether with a postulate.

Bodkin tell me this: If two differently moving sources emit light pulses
when they are adjacent, what in your peculiar mind could possibly cause
those pulses to remain together as they travel?
Do you believe there is some kind of imaginary point where the pulses
were emitted and the speed of the pulses is c relative to that point?
If so, what physical mechanism makes one pulse speed up and the other
slow down after they leave their respective sources at c. IS IT THE
AETHER, BODKIN?

[Tsvetana Kasatkina]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> Well quite obviously their different movements cannot affect the light
>> they are both approaching at different speeds.
>
> I'm glad you now agree that the speed of light is not affected by the
> motion of either the source or the receiver. It's time to pull the plug
> and drain your BaThWater.

Actually he seems happy you are admitting that. No being affected by the
motion means that the speed of light can be any, related to the state of
motion of the source or the emitter. You turned upside down the whole
thing, but good you finally are getting it.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 2:59 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 30/07/16 05:13, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 1:54 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>

>>
>> Dialog with Henry
>> in One Act
>> [HENRY adjusts his oxygen cannula and flicks an empty dog food can off
>> the porch into the weeds.]
>> HENRY: You know, the interior of the earth is made of cold mud.
>
> <rest of weak joke deleted...>
>
> Bodkin, are you not aware that Einstein's whole theory is based on the
> postulate (which is another word for 'assumption') that all light from
> all sources miraculously finds a common speed relative to everything?

[HENRY repeats the comment about cold mud, just with a minor variation.]

[HGWilson, DSc.]

....Isn't it past your bedtime, Bodkin?

[Odd Bodkin]

Nope. But on the other hand, I don't amuse myself the same way you do.

[David Waite]

On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Think about it!

You have it backward crackpot. Nothing is stationary in (1+3d)spacetime. The spacetime length of anything's velocity 4-vector is always c.
g_μ_ν U^μ U^ν = c²
consistent with the 4-force on anything always being perpendicular to the 4-velocity
g_μ_ν F^μ U^ν = 0
Thus you can only deflect the directions that thing's world lines take in spacetime, but never stop them. Even when something is stationary with respect to your labs space coordinates, it must still travel through you're lab's time coordinate. If you then push on it, it changes its 3-speed with respect to your lab, but moves at a different rate through your labs time, retaining that same 4-speed of c. You merely deflected its worldline direction in spacetime.

[Gary Harnagel]

Precisely right. And you will note that "HGW" - the one you called a
crackpot (correctly) --- is a self-proclaimed atheist :-)

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

David Waite wrote:

You have it backward crackpot. Nothing is stationary in (1+3d)spacetime. The spacetime length of anything's velocity 4-vector is always c.
g_μ_ν U^μ U^ν = c²

Exactly as I said before

Spacetime IS Kinetic Energy

E =( m*(v of c)^2 )/2

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 05/08/16 23:54, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 3:45:29 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:

>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> Think about it!
>>
>> You have it backward crackpot. Nothing is stationary in (1+3d)spacetime.
>> The spacetime length of anything's velocity 4-vector is always c.
>> g_μ_ν U^μ U^ν = c²
>> consistent with the 4-force on anything always being perpendicular to
>> the 4-velocity
>> g_μ_ν F^μ U^ν = 0
>> Thus you can only deflect the directions that thing's world lines take in
>> spacetime, but never stop them. Even when something is stationary with
>> respect to your labs space coordinates, it must still travel through
>> you're lab's time coordinate. If you then push on it, it changes its
>> 3-speed with respect to your lab, but moves at a different rate through
>> your labs time, retaining that same 4-speed of c. You merely deflected
>> its worldline direction in spacetime.

I said 'nothing moves in space'. Everything appears to move-one way and
at the same speed along a 'time axis' but that may just be a
psychological interpretation.
Spacetime does not exist as physical entity.

> Precisely right. And you will note that "HGW" - the one you called a
> crackpot (correctly) --- is a self-proclaimed atheist :-)

Thank christ I am. So is everyone I know..and half this country's
population. We are a bit more advanced than ratbag Yankeeland....but
donald will fix that soon.
I would hate to be an indoctrinated dickhead like you.