An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
Next: Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding - Indicates Big Bang Not Its Origin
From: PD on 4 Nov 2009 17:28 On Nov 4, 4:21 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> >Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.. > > >> >> I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper. > > >> >Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what > >> >you've just said? > >> >Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE > >> >EVER SAID? > > >> Just read the definition of a FoR. > > >OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where > >will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame- > >independent? > > You know what amuses me most Diaper? > > Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'. Well, this is like saying that no 4-legged animals can have more than four legs, except 6-legged animals. Nothing can exceed a *relative* speed of c. A closing speed, defined as it is, must be less than or equal to 2c. This is *immediately* obvious from its definition, if you'd ever bother to take note of what the definition actually is. I don't know why this seems so impenetrable to you. PD
From: Inertial on 4 Nov 2009 17:38 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:rgv3f5durejr5kvj4gviava0dk8sd2mbcv(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >>> >> >Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry. >>> >>> >> I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper. >>> >>> >Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what >>> >you've just said? >>> >Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE >>> >EVER SAID? >>> >>> Just read the definition of a FoR. >> >>OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where >>will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame- >>independent? > > You know what amuses me most Diaper? Your own idiocy? > Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'. Yeup .. its your own idiocy.
From: Inertial on 4 Nov 2009 17:43 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cf7ab16a-7b82-45e2-8758-97a4e94f69df(a)d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > PD Oh .. did you notice Porat has started a new thread "Paul Draper stole my book !!" and is publically accusing you (across multiple newsgroups) of being a thief and having stolen his book? He should be taken to court for that .. maybe get a court order to have him banned from using the internet. Although by the time it got through the courts, he'd probably be dead.
From: Inertial on 4 Nov 2009 18:06 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:2v04f5htc314gbpqlshp2phiirnutibob9(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:38:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:rgv3f5durejr5kvj4gviava0dk8sd2mbcv(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD >>>>> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> >>>>> >> >Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... >>>>> >> >sorry. >>>>> >>>>> >> I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper. >>>>> >>>>> >Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what >>>>> >you've just said? >>>>> >Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING >>>>> >YOU'VE >>>>> >EVER SAID? >>>>> >>>>> Just read the definition of a FoR. >>>> >>>>OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where >>>>will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame- >>>>independent? >>> >>> You know what amuses me most Diaper? >> >>Your own idiocy? >> >>> Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'. >> >>Yeup .. its your own idiocy. > > What about the gamma term, sqrt(c+v)(c-v) > Is c+v a speed greater than c? BAHAHA .. you're such a clown. Ever thought about doing stand-up comedy at a science convention? You'd be a huge success .. they'd be rolling in the aisles
From: PD on 5 Nov 2009 17:01
On Nov 5, 3:49 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:28:21 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 5, 1:44 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:11:39 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 5, 1:46 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:10:17 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> >> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. > > >> >> >Henri, if I make a sum (c + c + c + c + 2348c + 19.5/c), this is a > >> >> >number that has units of speed. Does that make it the measurable speed > >> >> >of ANYTHING? > > >> >> Aha! So you will naturally agree with my latest thread then ...that 'c' is not > >> >> a speed at all..... even though it has dimensions L/T. > > >> >c is not a speed because (c + c + c + 2986c) is not a measurable speed > >> >of anything? > > >> >Hmmmm.... > > >You think so? > > >> >> It is just a universal constant. > > >> >That some things travel at a speed matching that constant. > > >> Yes. Light wrt its source. > > >Or light with respect to the observer, regardless of motion of the > >source. > > ...only in fairyland, Diaper. Not a lick of evidence against it. |