Without a space medium how can anything move?

69 views
Skip to first unread message

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 18, 2020, 2:08:03 PM11/18/20
to
Dimension is where motion takes place.
Without it how could there be motion?

Mitchell Raemsch

Buddie Ajpop

unread,
Nov 18, 2020, 3:21:43 PM11/18/20
to
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Dimension is where motion takes place. Without it how could there be
> motion?

In time only.

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 10:08:25 AM11/19/20
to
There is motion relative to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum speed in the universe.
All other speeds are less than the speed of light, i.e., relative to the speed of light, or a percentage
of the speed of light. That is what Special Relativity is all about.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 10:56:45 AM11/19/20
to
No, it’s not.

You are operating in a mental isolation bubble. You decide to interpret a
phrase like “relative to” as you like, selecting one of several possible
colloquial meanings, WITHOUT CHECKING primary sources whether that is the
meaning intended.

Because you are isolated and can’t get out of your own head, you really
don’t have the power to learn this right. But that doesn’t make your choice
correct.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 1:12:29 PM11/19/20
to
On 11/19/20 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> There is motion relative to the speed of light.

Not in any meaningful sense, USING THE STANDARD MEANINGS OF THESE WORDS
IN PHYSICS.

Yes, we often report measurements of an object's speed as a fraction of
c. But this is NOT "relative to the speed of light" any more than
measuring the width of your desk is "relative to a meter" -- c is being
used as a MEASUREMENT UNIT, not any physical object or coordinates:

When a Physicist says "relative to X", X is _ALWAYS_ a system of
coordinates, and usually an inertial frame.

Non-physicists use that phrase in many different, invalid ways; "speed
relative to that object" is INVALID as it takes more than a single
object to determine a speed, it requires a COORDINATE SYSTEM -- that
should be "speed relative to the inertial frame in which that object is
at rest". Or possibly some other SPECIFIED coordinates related to that
object.

(Do not think a radar gun is a counterexample, as they
measure speed relative to the inertial frame in which
the instrument is at rest -- that is inherent in their
design and construction.)

(Yes, some police radar guns are really two instruments
in a single housing, measuring the speed of a targeted
vehicle and the speed of the ground, then subtracting
the two measurements. The previous paragraph applies to
each measurement -- the subtraction would not make
sense if it didn't.)

Your failure to learn very basic concepts of physics makes everything
you write around here completely useless and mostly wrong, because you
don't know what the words mean, or understand how they fit together. The
only cure for your COLOSSAL IGNORANCE is to study and LEARN something
about the subject.

Tom Roberts

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 2:18:01 PM11/19/20
to
On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:12:29 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/19/20 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > There is motion relative to the speed of light.
> Not in any meaningful sense, USING THE STANDARD MEANINGS OF THESE WORDS
> IN PHYSICS.

There is the atom moving below the speed of light
that can converge on light's constant C speed.
Move slow toward light and you and light converge at above C...

Mitchell Raemsch

Buddie Ajpop

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 3:23:00 PM11/19/20
to
Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/19/20 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> There is motion relative to the speed of light.
>
> Not in any meaningful sense, USING THE STANDARD MEANINGS OF THESE WORDS
> IN PHYSICS.
> Yes, we often report measurements of an object's speed as a fraction of
> c. But this is NOT "relative to the speed of light" any more than
> measuring the width of your desk is "relative to a meter" -- c is being
> used as a MEASUREMENT UNIT, not any physical object or coordinates:

Why is the light, hence its inherited speed, moves constant relative with
us being moving fast?

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 3:48:04 PM11/19/20
to
Actually, Tom, I have read a great deal about this subject, including just about
everything Albert Einstein wrote about time dilation.

Einstein's basic formula for motion time dilation uses the speed of light as a constant,
and the faster you go relative to the speed of light, the slower time passes
for you. It's fascinating stuff. You should open your mind and study it.

Mathematicians can't cope with it because they REQUIRE that all motion
be relative to some OBJECT. That is a STUPID rule that prevents them from
understanding how time dilation works, and it causes them to argue all
sorts of nonsense that totally conflicts with observed reality.

My papers about all this are here: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake

Buddie Ajpop

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 3:58:10 PM11/19/20
to
au contraire, mon senior, nothing converges to light, except when
absorbed or emitted. There is no middle man.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 4:19:23 PM11/19/20
to
On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 12:58:10 PM UTC-8, Buddie Ajpop wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:12:29 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 11/19/20 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >> > There is motion relative to the speed of light.
> >> Not in any meaningful sense, USING THE STANDARD MEANINGS OF THESE WORDS
> >> IN PHYSICS.
> >
> > There is the atom moving below the speed of light that can converge on
> > light's constant C speed.
> > Move slow toward light and you and light converge at above C...

Empty space is waiting to be filled by matter moving into it.

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 4:21:40 PM11/19/20
to
On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 12:58:10 PM UTC-8, Buddie Ajpop wrote:
My Movement can begin toward light's own C motion
just as matter converges or diverges on itself
light can move through light.

Buddie Ajpop

unread,
Nov 19, 2020, 4:51:18 PM11/19/20
to
this neither, you can't diverges away from light. Try it, tell me what
you got. The shadow, your ass is making when you move around, is
inescapable. Try it, as a homework for the exigent reader.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 1:48:23 AM11/20/20
to
On Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 19:12:29 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/19/20 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > There is motion relative to the speed of light.
> Not in any meaningful sense, USING THE STANDARD MEANINGS OF THESE WORDS
> IN PHYSICS.

Your moronic physics fucks the standard meanings of the word in real
world, real world pays back with fucking the standard meanings
of word in your moronic physics.

Xiao Guo An (Admin)

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 11:49:06 AM11/20/20
to
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 12:58:10 PM UTC-8, Buddie Ajpop wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:12:29 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> >> On 11/19/20 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> >> > There is motion relative to the speed of light.
>> >> Not in any meaningful sense, USING THE STANDARD MEANINGS OF THESE
>> >> WORDS IN PHYSICS.
>> >
>> > There is the atom moving below the speed of light that can converge
>> > on light's constant C speed.
>> > Move slow toward light and you and light converge at above C...
>
> Empty space is waiting to be filled by matter moving into it.

Inconclusive.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 11:52:40 AM11/20/20
to
On 11/19/20 2:48 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Actually, Tom, I have read a great deal about this subject, including
> just about everything Albert Einstein wrote about time dilation.

You mean that your eyes have traversed the words. Reading implies
understanding, and it is QUITE CLEAR that you do not understand very
basic concepts of SR.

Einstein's writings are particularly BAD for someone
like you, because he was writing for an audience of
physicists. You CLEARLY do not understand the meanings
of many of the important words he used, so how can you
possibly hope to understand his writings? Your failure
includes mistakenly thinking the brief descriptions in
his introduction are the actual statements of his
postulates (they aren't, and he clearly says so, but
you are unable to read it).

> Mathematicians can't cope with it because they REQUIRE that all
> motion be relative to some OBJECT.

This is just two of your very many MISCONCEPTIONS:
a) we are PHYSICISTS, not "mathematicians" (the two fields
are quite different -- your IGNORANCE is showing).
b) motion need not be relative to some object, but SPEED
and VELOCITY are always measured with respect to to a
specified COORDINATE SYSTEM.

Your repetitions merely prove my point: you do not understand this.
Everything you write around here is useless, and nearly all of it is
flat-out WRONG.

Have you realized yet that inside the back of a closed
truck, no radar gun can possibly determine the truck's
speed relative to the ground?
-- That is a primary instance of your grotesque lack
of understanding of very basic physics.

Tom Roberts

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 12:00:31 PM11/20/20
to
On Friday, 20 November 2020 at 17:52:40 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/19/20 2:48 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Actually, Tom, I have read a great deal about this subject, including
> > just about everything Albert Einstein wrote about time dilation.
> You mean that your eyes have traversed the words. Reading implies
> understanding

You're a living proof it doesn't, poor hafbrain.

Buddie Ajpop

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 12:03:09 PM11/20/20
to
Tom Roberts wrote:

> Have you realized yet that inside the back of a closed truck, no radar
> gun can possibly determine the truck's speed relative to the ground?
> -- That is a primary instance of your grotesque lack
> of understanding of very basic physics.

but the gravity penetrates whatever closure, but you'll never know
whether your spaceship accelerate 1g or standing still on a rocky planet
1g. This is what the young Einstein, or others tells us, taking all those
*amazing vaccines*. Otherwise it would be anti-scinece.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 3:05:27 PM11/20/20
to
On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 1:51:18 PM UTC-8, Buddie Ajpop wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 12:58:10 PM UTC-8, Buddie Ajpop wrote:
> >> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:12:29 AM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> >> On 11/19/20 9:08 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >> >> > There is motion relative to the speed of light.
> >> >> Not in any meaningful sense, USING THE STANDARD MEANINGS OF THESE
> >> >> WORDS IN PHYSICS.
> >> >
> >> > There is the atom moving below the speed of light that can converge
> >> > on light's constant C speed.
> >> > Move slow toward light and you and light converge at above C...
> >> au contraire, mon senior, nothing converges to light, except when
> >
> > My Movement can begin toward light's own C motion just as matter
> > converges or diverges on itself light can move through light.
> this neither, you can't diverges away from light.

Move away and you diverge with your motion with light's...

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 3:16:48 PM11/20/20
to
Light has its own motion. And so does the atom...
If I move myself and the Earth isn't moving me there
there is only relativity of appearance science...

Mitchell Raemsch

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 4:57:56 PM11/20/20
to
The key is that light ALWAYS travels at c, and NOTHING
can go faster than c.

So, the speed of everything else in the universe can be
compared to the speed of light. The speed of everything
else in the universe is a fraction of the speed of light.

Ed

Sylvia Else

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 5:47:44 PM11/20/20
to
If you are sitting out in the vacuum of space, though suitably protected
from the immediate death that would usually arise in that situation, and
you clap your hands, you'll see them move.

Where's the problem?

Sylvia.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 8:25:11 PM11/20/20
to
Distance is the future...

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 8:28:49 PM11/20/20
to
So you believe light doesn't slow in a medium?
What about changing direction?


and NOTHING
> can go faster than c.
>
> So, the speed of everything else in the universe can be
> compared to the speed of light. The speed of everything
> else in the universe is a fraction of the speed of light.

Can a medium catch up to light speed?

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> Ed

Xiao Guo An (Admin)

unread,
Nov 20, 2020, 8:39:10 PM11/20/20
to
mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> If you are sitting out in the vacuum of space, though suitably
>> protected from the immediate death that would usually arise in that
>> situation, and you clap your hands, you'll see them move.
>> Where's the problem?
>
> Distance is the future...

Not once you are getting genetically modified with amazing modeRNA
vaccines. It's not only about human rights and liberty, but you factually
are the property of bill gates and fraudci. The military will penetrate
you with rigid needles by force in 24 hours. Said on record. Mind blowing
what these capitalist criminals are doing. It makes your distance stop,
no future.

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 21, 2020, 9:39:27 AM11/21/20
to
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 7:28:49 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
A medium like the mythical "aether" is stationary, so how can it catch up to light speed?
How do you move air or water to the speed of light?

In theory, if you try to use energy to move an object to light speed, you will need more
energy than there is in a galaxy.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Nov 21, 2020, 11:18:06 AM11/21/20
to
On Friday, November 20, 2020 at 10:52:40 AM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/19/20 2:48 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Actually, Tom, I have read a great deal about this subject, including
> > just about everything Albert Einstein wrote about time dilation.
> You mean that your eyes have traversed the words. Reading implies
> understanding, and it is QUITE CLEAR that you do not understand very
> basic concepts of SR.
>
> Einstein's writings are particularly BAD for someone
> like you, because he was writing for an audience of
> physicists. You CLEARLY do not understand the meanings
> of many of the important words he used, so how can you
> possibly hope to understand his writings? Your failure
> includes mistakenly thinking the brief descriptions in
> his introduction are the actual statements of his
> postulates (they aren't, and he clearly says so, but
> you are unable to read it).
> > Mathematicians can't cope with it because they REQUIRE that all
> > motion be relative to some OBJECT.
> This is just two of your very many MISCONCEPTIONS:
> a) we are PHYSICISTS, not "mathematicians" (the two fields
> are quite different -- your IGNORANCE is showing).

If all your arguments and thought processes are based upon math, then
you are a mathematician even if you claim to be a physicist.

> b) motion need not be relative to some object, but SPEED
> and VELOCITY are always measured with respect to to a
> specified COORDINATE SYSTEM.

Yes, Tom, that is what mathematicians BELIEVE. However, Einstein
discovered that speed and velocity can also be measured with
respect to Nature's MAXIMUM allowed speed, which is the speed
of light. Measuring speeds relative to the speed of light gives you
a TRUE speed. Measuring speeds relative to some "coordinate
system" gives you a mathematical conclusion, which might have
nothing to do with reality.

>
> Your repetitions merely prove my point: you do not understand this.
> Everything you write around here is useless, and nearly all of it is
> flat-out WRONG.

Declarations of your beliefs mean nothing, Tom. Do you deny that speeds
CAN be measured relative to the speed of light? It cannot be denied,
so your insistence on measuring speeds relative to some "coordinate
system" just shows that you have DOGMATIC BELIEFS which conflict
with reality and prevent you from doing things correctly.

>
> Have you realized yet that inside the back of a closed
> truck, no radar gun can possibly determine the truck's
> speed relative to the ground?
> -- That is a primary instance of your grotesque lack
> of understanding of very basic physics.

Declarations of your beliefs mean nothing, Tom. The truck IS moving.
That means emissions from the radar gun will hit the walls at c+v or c-v.
And those photon emissions "reflected" from the walls will hit the radar gun
at c-v or c+v, which will cause the gun to compute the speed of the wall as zero.

All that is needed to measure the speed of a truck from inside the
truck is a way to perform only ONE measurement. My paper explains
how that can be done: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v2.pdf

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 21, 2020, 11:35:20 AM11/21/20
to
In this group there are the schizophrenics who babble-post from the public
library, and then there are the lonely cranks who don’t recognize when
they’re in conversation with one of the schizophrenics.

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

kenseto

unread,
Nov 21, 2020, 12:16:38 PM11/21/20
to
You can determine the speed of the truck wrt the road as follows:
1. The truck is not moving wrt the road. The frequency at the truck wall is f_o.
2. The truck is moving wrt the road: The frequency at the truck wall is f_m
3. The speed of the truck wrt the road = c[(f_o - f_m)/f-o)]

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 21, 2020, 1:57:32 PM11/21/20
to
Aether space is needed for things to change position in...
No movement without it.

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 22, 2020, 2:30:12 PM11/22/20
to
Light and atom have to change position in a dimension medium
they do not have absolute rest... the atom has kinetic slow time and energy
by having no rest...

Mitchell Raemsch

Paul Alsing

unread,
Nov 22, 2020, 7:38:27 PM11/22/20
to
“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Nov 23, 2020, 1:35:36 AM11/23/20
to
Don't flatter yourself, Al, you're not frightful
at all.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages