 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008The problems with a "constant" speed
The speed of light is simply a speed. It is 186,000 miles per second. How can any speed be not a relative speed? What makes 186,000 miles per second immune to relative motion? The speed of light can not be constant to all unless it is immune to relative motion. And if it is immune to relative motion, then it is not a "speed" at all. Speed can not be "non" relative. :) Relativists have created a parodox as the base of thier church foundation. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 4, 5:40 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > The speed of light is simply a speed. > It is 186,000 miles per second. > How can any speed be not a relative speed? All speeds are a relative speed, including light speed. > What makes 186,000 miles per second immune > to relative motion? It's not. It's just that you have a formula in your head for finding relative motion that is incorrect. The formula you have in your head is to either add speeds or subtract speeds. For example, if you have a car going east on a road at 40 mph, and you chuck an apple core east from the car at 10 mph, you expect that the apple core will be going 50 mph over the road. While this formula is close to being correct, it is not correct. The correct formula is (40 mph + 10 mph)/(1 + (40 mph)(10 mph)/c^2). This differs only slightly from 50 mph, if you actually do the calculation, which is why perhaps we didn't notice that the simple sum was wrong when we did measurements to check. But let's suppose now that you throw light forward at c from the car going 40 mph over the road. Now how fast is the light going over the road? Well, you now have the formula that works just the same for light as it does for an apple core: (40 mph + c) / (1 + (40 mph)(c)/c^2). I suggest you do that little bit of math and find out what answer you get. > The speed of light can not be constant to all > unless it is immune to relative motion. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 4, 5:40 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > All speeds are a relative speed, including light speed. Ok, so The constant speed of light to all is incorrect immeditely and we can drop the rest of relativities crap that is using it's constant to all crap. :) >> What makes 186,000 miles per second immune >> to relative motion? > > It's not. It's just that you have a formula in your head for finding > relative motion that is incorrect. The formula you have in your head > is to either add speeds or subtract speeds. No, That way I always talk about is only for linear stuff. > For example, if you have a > car going east on a road at 40 mph, and you chuck an apple core east > from the car at 10 mph, you expect that the apple core will be going > 50 mph over the road. While this formula is close to being correct, it > is not correct. Actually it is if the wind does not slow anythign down. Unless you have a physical force slwoing it. the addition works perfectally when linear. The only way it does nto work is when you did not actually add that speed at all. > The correct formula is (40 mph + 10 mph)/(1 + (40 mph)(10 mph)/c^2). No, that is using lightspeed for an observational view. lightspeed is not needed for other speeds to exist to each other. You have just used the lightspeed "non constant" as a constant. :) > This differs only slightly from 50 mph, if you actually do the > calculation, which is why perhaps we didn't notice that the simple sum [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > light as it does for an apple core: > (40 mph + c) / (1 + (40 mph)(c)/c^2). Nope, Why do you limit speed addition using a non constant to all speed known as lightspeed? > I suggest you do that little bit of math and find out what answer you > get. I suggest you do a little bit of adding distances and find out how to time things correctly when they do such added distances in the same second. 40 miles + 40 miles in the same hour = 80 miles per hour. Lightspeed has nothing to do with such either. It seems you forgot how to actually add distances. mile + mile = 2mile If not. you did not add a mile to a mile. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 4, 4:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 5:40 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman A frame can be traveling behind light at 99.9% its speed. How much further in space can light go ahead of this frame? .1% [snip crap] > A frame can be traveling behind light at 99.9% its speed. How much > further in space can light go ahead of this frame? > > .1% 100% of lightspeed. Idiot. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 On Jul 4, 7:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 5:40 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > immeditely and we can drop the rest of relativities crap > that is using it's constant to all crap. Not at all. You have in your mind that velocities combine by simple addition or subtraction. They don't. > :) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, > That way I always talk about is only for linear stuff. Then you can't talk about velocities, because velocities don't combine that way. Experimentally. > > For example, if you have a > > car going east on a road at 40 mph, and you chuck an apple core east [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Actually it is if the wind does not slow anythign down. No, actually, it's not, wind or no wind. This has been proven *experimentally*. The world does not work the way you think it has to. > Unless you have a physical force slwoing it. > the addition works perfectally when linear. But velocities don't combine that way. > The only way it does nto work is when you did not actually > add that speed at all. Velocities don't add. > > The correct formula is (40 mph + 10 mph)/(1 + (40 mph)(10 mph)/c^2). > > No, > that is using lightspeed for an observational view. No. It's using 40mph and 10mph, the speeds of a car and an apple core. Lightspeed observational views have nothing to do with it. Nature does not behave the way you want it to behave. TS. > lightspeed is not needed for other speeds to exist to each other. > You have just used the lightspeed "non constant" as a constant. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > out how to time things correctly when they do such added distances > in the same second. Adding distances is not how velocities combine. Your mental argument does not apply to the way nature works. TS. > 40 miles + 40 miles in the same hour = 80 miles per hour. > Lightspeed has nothing to do with such either. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 4, 7:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Not at all. You have in your mind that velocities combine by simple > addition or subtraction. They don't. I don't have that in my mind, I have it for fact about distance additions. 40 miles + 40 miles = 80 miles all the time. > Then you can't talk about velocities, because velocities don't combine > that way. Experimentally. Velocities with same directions do such very well. The distances add as if the time was not there at all. 40 miles in direction x + 40 miles in direction x = 80 miles in direction x. > But velocities don't combine that way. Sorry PD, linear velocities do add just like apples per seconds would also.. You are saying basic math is wrong. that is really bad. :) > Velocities don't add. Parrot crap. > No. It's using 40mph and 10mph, the speeds of a car and an apple core. > Lightspeed observational views have nothing to do with it. Correct light has nothing to do with it, so we have 40 + 10 = 50 Again, you lose. Basic math wins. :) > Nature does not behave the way you want it to behave. TS. Yes it does work just as I know it does. 40 apples per second + 10 apples per second will equal 50 apples per second all the time. Unless of course you have proof that basic math itself is wrong. :) > Adding distances is not how velocities combine. Your mental argument > does not apply to the way nature works. TS. Hold your horses PD, We are talking about adding, not combining. You are losing an basic math is laughing at you. :) 186,000 grams per second + 1 gram per second = 186,001 grams per second. You lose Basic math wins as usual. HA HA! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 5, 1:42 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 7:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman You have this basic faith that "like combined with like always means +". This is what you call "basic math" and in your mind if this isn't true then everything is broken. But this is the addlement of the ignorant, and your "law" is only what you've dreamt up in your own head. Moreover, you insist that if measurements do not bear out this "like combined with like" rule for everything the way you want it to, then there is something wrong with the measurements, or the standards of measurement, or something else is kaflooey in the world that you want fixed. In other words, you WANT the rule "like combined with like always means +" to hold, and you want the standards of measurement to be adjusted so that this rule comes out to be true. And moreover, you puff up your chest and say the whole world is behind you on this. There are days, Spaceman, when your third-grade attitudes toward reality are more ridiculous than on other days. PD > On Jul 5, 1:42 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > But this is the addlement of the ignorant, and your "law" is only what > you've dreamt up in your own head. Nice lie there PD, I never think combined means + that is an addition sign, and when used properly it does become basic math that is not wrong. Not one person has shown that basic math itself is wrong. And you have not either. > Moreover, you insist that if measurements do not bear out this "like > combined with like" rule for everything the way you want it to, then > there is something wrong with the measurements, or the standards of > measurement, or something else is kaflooey in the world that you want > fixed. Nice twist. combining again instead of adding in linear form. Your ignorance of the basic addition is bad, your lying about what I stated is even worse. > In other words, you WANT the rule "like combined with like always > means +" to hold, and you want the standards of measurement to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are days, Spaceman, when your third-grade attitudes toward > reality are more ridiculous than on other days. Whatever grade my attitude may be at, my brain at least is not twisted enouigh like yours to lie about what is stated and change the word addition for a linear adding to the word combine just so you can have a chance at being correct. Truly the last resort of the rubber ruler worshipper, the typicle twisting and lying as usual. You are pathetic PD. and so is relativities constant of lightspeed. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 7, 9:38 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 5, 1:42 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > Not one person has shown that basic math itself is wrong. > And you have not either. Yes, they have. Measurement has shown you wrong. You dismiss the measurement, and you make that dismissal on the basis that the measurement doesn't give you the answer you want. > > Moreover, you insist that if measurements do not bear out this "like > > combined with like" rule for everything the way you want it to, then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nice twist. > combining again instead of adding in linear form. That's because like doesn't always add to like in linear form, despite your desire that they always do. > Your ignorance of the basic addition is bad, your lying about > what I stated is even worse. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You are pathetic PD. > and so is relativities constant of lightspeed. What you think is pathetic is, of course, not really material, is it? Scientists have a way of figuring out what is twisted and what is not. You rely on your head and your "independent thinking". What's your way of determining whether your head is twisted? > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 7, 9:38 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > measurement, and you make that dismissal on the basis that the > measurement doesn't give you the answer you want. LOL Measurement has not shown me wrong. Measurement actually agrees with me. And if the basic math of addition I am using is wrong, than anything using basic addition at all in your rubber ruler world is based upon a "Wrong" math to begin with. You really like to base things on wrong things huh? Too bad the basics are not wrong and that in turn means your "theory that the basic math is wrong" is wrong itself "either way". LOL > That's because like doesn't always add to like in linear form, despite > your desire that they always do. Poor PD, He is still shouting "basic math is wrong" and then he uses basic math to prove such! ROFLOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 7, 11:14 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 9:38 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > Measurement has not shown me wrong. > Measurement actually agrees with me. You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. That's not my problem. > And if the basic math of addition I am using is wrong, > than anything using basic addition at all in your rubber ruler [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. > That's not my problem. You have data that proves 100 miles of travel along a path + 100 miles or travel further along that path does not equal 200 miles of traveling along that path? LOL >> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. >> That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that path? > LOL Travel in a constant direction, turning neither left nor right, along the surface of a sphere of diameter 63 miles. You'll end up about a foot away from where you started. >>> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. >>> That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 63 miles. You'll end up about a foot away from where > you started. Left nor right but down the entire time, I am sorry, you did not even travel a straight line. You lose the draw a straight line on the surface of a sphere contest. Hint: You can not draw a "straight line" on the surface of a sphere. You lost before you tried. :) You are so stuck in surface mode it is not even funny. Straight lines do not follow a spherical surface at all. I am sorry you can't think off of the sphere, nevermind thinking out of the box. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. >>>> That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Left nor right but down the entire time, > I am sorry, you did not even travel a straight line. You said "path", which is arbitrary. You didn't specify any particular geometry. I cannot be faulted for your omissions. > You lose the draw a straight line on the surface > of a sphere contest. > Hint: You can not draw a "straight line" on the surface of a sphere. Correction, no one can draw a straight line on a sphere that you would be happy with. Not the same thing at all. >>>>> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. >>>>> That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > any particular geometry. I cannot be faulted for your > omissions. Nope, path or line, to be straight both have the same rules. You simply needto twist such rules to make a "curved path considered to be straight". I can't help it if you still don't know what "straight" means >> You lose the draw a straight line on the surface >> of a sphere contest. >> Hint: You can not draw a "straight line" on the surface of a sphere. > > Correction, no one can draw a straight line on a sphere > that you would be happy with. Not the same thing at all. No, Again, you just no longer know what "straight" means. It is probably all the rubber ruler stuff in your head that made you forget. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>>> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. >>>>>> That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You simply needto twist such rules to make > a "curved path considered to be straight". You didn't specify a straight path. > I can't help it if you still don't know what "straight" means I can't help it if you can't think clearly enough to post an unambiguous statement. >>> You lose the draw a straight line on the surface >>> of a sphere contest. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It is probably all the rubber ruler stuff in your head that > made you forget. You need to broaden your horizons and take in the splendor and elegance of higher mathematics. >>>>>>> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you >>>>>>> wrong. That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You didn't specify a straight path. Distance along the path does not matter if straight or not. the miles along the path add just fine. 100 miles along the path + 100 miles along the path means you have traveled 200 miles long the path "straight or not". Your twisting is getting more sad each an every time Greg. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>>>>> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you >>>>>>>> wrong. That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > means you have traveled 200 miles long the path > "straight or not". Yeah, so? What's your point? > Your twisting is getting more sad each an every time Greg. Meanwhile, your inability to state an unambiguous question reamins constant. At least I'm making progress! >>>>>>>>> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you >>>>>>>>> wrong. That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Yeah, so? What's your point? The point goes way over your little box Greg. :) Don't worry about it. You are safe in your box, you never have to find causes from there.. since you have your curved spacetime cause for everything! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>> Distance along the path does not matter if straight or not. >>> the miles along the path add just fine. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > from there.. since you have your curved spacetime > cause for everything! Ah. So there was no point then. Thank's for clearing that up. On Jul 7, 3:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >>> You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. > >>> That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You are so stuck in surface mode it is not even funny. > Straight lines do not follow a spherical surface at all. Straight on a 2-D surface means turning neither left nor right. "Down" isn't part of the 2D surface, it's part of a 3D volume. So when you say this path turns "down", you can only talk about this in 3D talk, not 2D talk. Now, if you have a 3D curved space, this means neither turning left nor right, nor down nor up, but you still might end up where you started from. To account for this, you'll have to invent some new direction in 4D space that this path is curved in, because this one turns neither left nor right nor up nor down and so is as straight as can be thought of in 3D space. So what is this direction in 4D space that the path is curved in? > I am sorry you can't think off of the sphere, nevermind > thinking out of the box. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 7, 3:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > say this path turns "down", you can only talk about this in 3D talk, > not 2D talk. So you call a 2D surface that you don't turn left or right and end up at the same spot around a sphere a 2D surface at all? No wonder you are all screwed up! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 8, 11:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 3:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > right and end up at the same spot around a sphere a 2D surface > at all? Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you think that 2D implied flat too? Wherever did you get that idea? > No wonder you are all screwed up! > LOL > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 8, 11:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > that 2D implied flat too? > Wherever did you get that idea? LOL You are ignoring the 3rd dimension to use 2 dimensions so it can straight when it is simply not "physically" straight at all and must be curved to follow the sphere at all. ROFLOL You are making a bigger fool than you think you could. I kinda feel sorry for you but you have been such an a.s I really don't. You are one of the Smartest stupid people, the rubber ruler kingdom has sprouted LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible >> motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you think [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You are one of the Smartest stupid people, the rubber ruler > kingdom has sprouted James has never been familiarized with geometry beyond gradeschool geometry. He doesn't know what dimensionality of surfaces means. One wonders what might happen to James' mind should he be intriduced to the implications of the Mobius Strip. >>> Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible >>> motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you think [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > what might happen to James' mind should he be > intriduced to the implications of the Mobius Strip. LOL Greg says I don't know about geometry, yet he is ignoring the 3D motion needed to travel on the surface of a sphere at all. Freakin priceless! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible >>>> motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > of a sphere at all. > Freakin priceless! See? James doesn't know what a surface is in geometry. >>>>> Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible >>>>> motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > See? James doesn't know what a surface is in geometry. See, Greg does not know that a surface that is not flat is a 3D surface no matter what he thinks.. LOL >>>>>> Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible >>>>>> motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > See, Greg does not know that a surface that is not flat > is a 3D surface no matter what he thinks.. James proudly confirms his ignorance. >>>>>>> Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible >>>>>>> motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > James proudly confirms his ignorance. Greg proudly confirms his ignorance of the word ignorance. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 9, 10:16 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >>>>> Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible > >>>>> motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > See, Greg does not know that a surface that is not flat > is a 3D surface no matter what he thinks.. Aha. So Spaceman thinks that a 2D surface is not 2D unless it is also flat, and you can't tell that until you look at it in a higher dimension. Somehow, though, he is quite sure that his 3D world is flat as flat can be, without looking at it in 4D to be sure. Then again, he doesn't know how to check whether a 2D surface is curved WITHOUT looking at the 3rd dimension, and he doesn't know that works in 3D too. > LOL > Aha. So Spaceman thinks that a 2D surface is not 2D unless it is also > flat, and you can't tell that until you look at it in a higher > dimension. Yes I do think such. It is called living on a round world instead of being a flatworlder. LOL > Somehow, though, he is quite sure that his 3D world is flat as flat > can be, without looking at it in 4D to be sure. No, You are the one saying a 3D world is flat. Again, you need to twist my statements into your "twisted" and obscured view of what 3D means. > Then again, he doesn't know how to check whether a 2D surface is > curved WITHOUT looking at the 3rd dimension, and he doesn't know that > works in 3D too. Poor poor PD. still grasping for feathers that are not even there to try and fly as you fall. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Aha. So Spaceman thinks that a 2D surface is not 2D unless it is also >> flat, and you can't tell that until you look at it in a higher [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Again, you need to twist my statements into your "twisted" > and obscured view of what 3D means. No, that's just about the opposite of what PD said. You're the one insisting on flat 3D space (Euclidean). PD and just about everybody else with an education, is using a standard definition of geometrical surface and dimension. Your "twisted and obscured view of what 3D means" is anything but to everyone except, it seems, you! > No, that's just about the opposite of what PD said. You're > the one insisting on flat 3D space (Euclidean). That statement alone shows how stupid you are about Euclidian 3D It is not a "flat" space. It simply has straight lines for a coordinate system. It is really bad you can't understand that. Maybe you should check out just about every single 3D program made in the world that use such 3D to make curves and spheres in them all the time. Tis real sad you can not grasp how to use such a simple and worldwide system. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> No, that's just about the opposite of what PD said. You're >> the one insisting on flat 3D space (Euclidean). > > That statement alone shows how stupid you are about Euclidian 3D > It is not a "flat" space. Flat as in lacking curvature. Euclidean space is BY DEFINITION flat. > It simply has straight lines for a coordinate system. Yes. It is flat. > It is really bad you can't understand that. > Maybe you should check out just about every single 3D program > made in the world that use such 3D to make curves and spheres > in them all the time. They just model objects in a Euclidean space. The objects are not the space. > Tis real sad you can not grasp how to use > such a simple and worldwide system. It's amazing how often you argue with definitions simply because you never bothered to look them up and understand them, or because you simply don't like them personally. >>> No, that's just about the opposite of what PD said. You're >>> the one insisting on flat 3D space (Euclidean). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Flat as in lacking curvature. Euclidean space is BY DEFINITION > flat. Oh sheesh, no wonder you will never get it. LOL >> It simply has straight lines for a coordinate system. > > Yes. It is flat. Nope. only the imaginary planes are flat and the lines are straight.. poor Greg. no clue about basic good old 3D anymore. Lost classical physics and basic geometry completely. See what relativity can do to you folks! LOL >> It is really bad you can't understand that. >> Maybe you should check out just about every single 3D program [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They just model objects in a Euclidean space. The objects > are not the space. No sh.t sherlock. that is what works the best. imaginary flat planes and REAL objects moving through them Sheesh. You really have never even attempted to use such huh? Nevermind Greg. You will never get any of it. You have gone beyond anyones ability to help you. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Tis real sad you can not grasp how to use >> such a simple and worldwide system. > > It's amazing how often you argue with definitions simply > because you never bothered to look them up and understand > them, or because you simply don't like them personally. On Jul 9, 9:34 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >>> Yes, it is a 2D surface, if there are only 2 degrees of possible > >>> motion on the surface. That's what 2D is *defined* as. Did you think [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Freakin priceless! > LOL Actually, what's interesting is your simultaneous assertion that you don't have to worry about the 4D motion needed to travel in the volume of a curved space at all. And this you just *know* somehow. > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > Actually, what's interesting is your simultaneous assertion that you > don't have to worry about the 4D motion needed to travel in the volume > of a curved space at all. And this you just *know* somehow. Why should I worry about timing the motion I make at all? Your reaching for another wind blocker now so the card house does not blow away huh? LOL >> Actually, what's interesting is your simultaneous assertion that you >> don't have to worry about the 4D motion needed to travel in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Your reaching for another wind blocker now so the card house > does not blow away huh? Reading comprehension problem noted. Where did PD mention time or timing in the above? He's talking about spacial dimensions. >>> Actually, what's interesting is your simultaneous assertion that you >>> don't have to worry about the 4D motion needed to travel in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Reading comprehension problem noted. Where did PD mention time > or timing in the above? He's talking about spacial dimensions. 4D is adding time as the 4th dimension Greg. It is real sad you don't get that or that you need to twist it into something not mentioning time at all.. You really should get back and learn some classical physics someday. Sheesh. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> Actually, what's interesting is your simultaneous assertion that >>>> you don't have to worry about the 4D motion needed to travel in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 4D is adding time as the 4th dimension Greg. No, he's adding a fourth spacial dimension. This would be another dimension with the characteristics of the usual three spacial dimensions (namely extent in terms of distance rather than time). You made the unwarranted assumption that the fourth dimension he was taling about was a time dimension. There are physical theories that are investigated that contain up to 23 spacial dimensions. Some have multiple time dimensions too! All theoretical, of course. None have yielded anything better than we have now or testable for evidence in favor so far. > No, he's adding a fourth spacial dimension. This would > be another dimension with the characteristics of the > usual three spacial dimensions (namely extent in terms > of distance rather than time). You made the unwarranted > assumption that the fourth dimension he was taling about > was a time dimension. ROFLOL! Going the old Scifi route huh? LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 9, 8:34 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 11:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > so it can straight when it is simply not "physically" straight > at all and must be curved to follow the sphere at all. What does "physically" straight mean to you? And if you think you HAVE to include the extra dimension when determining whether a line is "physically straight", then where is the 4th dimension for determining whether 3D lines are straight? On the other hand, if you say that you only need 3 dimensions to determine whether a 3D line is straight, then I would then agree that we only need 2 dimensions to determine whether a 2D line is straight. You see, folks who understand basic math and basic geometry tell you that you don't have to resort to the third dimension to tell if a 2D straight line is living in a curved 2D space. There are much easier ways to tell. > ROFLOL > You are making a bigger fool than you think you could. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > What does "physically" straight mean to you? Straight when viewed from any of the 3 dimensions. > And if you think you HAVE to include the extra dimension when > determining whether a line is "physically straight", then where is the > 4th dimension for determining whether 3D lines are straight? What 4th dimension crap is needed to see a line from 3 dimensions of view points? > On the other hand, if you say that you only need 3 dimensions to > determine whether a 3D line is straight, then I would then agree that > we only need 2 dimensions to determine whether a 2D line is straight. Then you would be mistaken and a freakin moron that has no clue how to physically determine a stright line. > You see, folks who understand basic math and basic geometry tell you > that you don't have to resort to the third dimension to tell if a 2D > straight line is living in a curved 2D space. There are much easier > ways to tell. Curved 2D space? You are warped! Show me a curve that is straight with length and width only. Remeber you can not leave the length and width plane because then you would have a height also.. You poor poor thing. ROFLOL! SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 9, 3:18 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > What does "physically" straight mean to you? > > Straight when viewed from any of the 3 dimensions. And what if it's a line in a 3D volume and not a line on a 2D surface? How are you going to tell? > > And if you think you HAVE to include the extra dimension when > > determining whether a line is "physically straight", then where is the > > 4th dimension for determining whether 3D lines are straight? > > What 4th dimension crap is needed to see a line from 3 dimensions > of view points? You're relying on a 3rd dimension to judge the straightness of a line on a surface. Yet you say you don't need a 4th dimension to judge the straightness of a line in a volume. You live by goofy rules, Spaceman. > > On the other hand, if you say that you only need 3 dimensions to > > determine whether a 3D line is straight, then I would then agree that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Curved 2D space? Yup. 1. Take a flat piece of paper. 2. Draw 2 axes on it. 3. You can't draw a third axis without leaving the paper. That's what makes it 2D. 4. Now pick up the paper and rest the center of it on the tip of your finger. Suddenly the surface is different, but you've not changed anything about 2 and 3 at all. > You are warped! > Show me a curve that is straight with length and width only. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman On Jul 8, 11:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 3:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > No wonder you are all screwed up! > LOL Notice that you did not answer the question about the direction in 4D space that you think 3D space is curved in. Answers? PD > On Jul 8, 11:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > space that you think 3D space is curved in. > Answers? Answers about me thinking a "space" is curved? Sorry, that is your warpage of thought not mine. On Jul 9, 8:35 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 11:12 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Answers about me thinking a "space" is curved? > Sorry, that is your warpage of thought not mine. So if you say you have to look in a 3rd dimension to see if a 2D line is "physically straight" or curved. But somehow you just *know* without looking at a 4th dimension whether a 3D line is "physically straight" or curved? How do you do that other than just asserting it is so? > So if you say you have to look in a 3rd dimension to see if a 2D line > is "physically straight" or curved. The only way to prove a line is straight is to look at 3 dimensions to make sure you don't have a curved line at all. Are you really that stupid to think you can make a straight line without proving it is straight at all? Wow, you are really warped. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> So if you say you have to look in a 3rd dimension to see if a 2D line >> is "physically straight" or curved. > > The only way to prove a line is straight is to look at 3 dimensions > to make sure you don't have a curved line at all. That's silly. You can't tell by looking from inside a 3D universe whether or not it is curved in 4D. You can do some measurements to tell, though. Can you guess what they might be? > Are you really that stupid to think you can make a straight line > without proving it is straight at all? You can make a line that is straight in the dimensions you're working with. But you can't guarantee straightness in dimensions you don't have access to. >>> So if you say you have to look in a 3rd dimension to see if a 2D >>> line is "physically straight" or curved. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's silly. You can't tell by looking from inside a > 3D universe whether or not it is curved in 4D. You truly never worked with a 3D program ever in your life I guess. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> So if you say you have to look in a 3rd dimension to see if a 2D >>>> line is "physically straight" or curved. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You truly never worked with a 3D program ever in your life > I guess. Not so. But then, a 3D program is not the real world. It's a mathematical representation of a 3D world. Have you ever worked with a modelling program that models higher dimensions? You can produce 3D and 2D projections of objects that "live" in higher dimensional spaces. Sort of like 3D objects casting shadows on a flat surface, only in this case its 4 or 5 or more D objects casting "shadows" into our 3D world. > Not so. But then, a 3D program is not the real world. It's > a mathematical representation of a 3D world. Funny, it models the real world very well, and it does such so well it predicts weather patterns these days also. There is even one that has been run in reverse to see how the planets were formed.. Poor Greg. You don't really know about any 3D programs at all. LOL > Have you ever worked with a modelling program that models > higher dimensions? You can produce 3D and 2D projections > of objects that "live" in higher dimensional spaces. Why bother with higher dimensions when the 3D versions with absolute timing work so great. You go waste your time with that crap. Basic 3D with newton works great! Especially when you slap classical physics all over the place without relativity stuff at all. absolute times and absolute distances everywhere is even how it works the best of all to make it so real, you would swear the Enterprise was blowing up a Klingon warship for real! LOL > Sort > of like 3D objects casting shadows on a flat surface, only > in this case its 4 or 5 or more D objects casting "shadows" > into our 3D world. Actually that is called lighting and shade effects. You can have multiple lightsources and all sorts of lighting some gun sights in some 3D programs can even use infrared and "0 lux" type optical sights on thier scopes.. They all work great and only need classical wave equations just like sound uses but set to a faster speed and with light effects instead of noise effects. You truly should check the 3D worlds beign created these days out.. They model reality to a T. and do it all with absolute distances and asbolute times and classical physics only. But we know you can't accept that. You need a warped multi standard world that uses rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks to make up for the rubber rulers and it is all caused by math in your little brain. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Not so. But then, a 3D program is not the real world. It's >> a mathematical representation of a 3D world. > > Funny, it models the real world very well, > and it does such so well it predicts weather patterns > these days also. Amazing. You have a 3D drawing program that does weather prediction? I'm impressed. > There is even one that has been run in reverse to see > how the planets were formed.. Wow! That's some drawing program you've got there. Perhaps you meant simulation programs? Those I'm quite familiar with. I've written a few. You might be interested to know that the more accurate long term solar system integrations that are done include special and general relativistic effects. > Poor Greg. > You don't really know about any 3D programs at all. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm afraid that I do. >> Have you ever worked with a modelling program that models >> higher dimensions? You can produce 3D and 2D projections [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it so real, you would swear the Enterprise was blowing > up a Klingon warship for real! I'm sure. Lots of fun. >> Sort >> of like 3D objects casting shadows on a flat surface, only [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with absolute distances and asbolute times and classical physics > only. Those are all only 3D Euclidean world models. I'm sure they're wonderfull for what they are designed to do. > But we know you can't accept that. Accept what? Modern rendering technology? What's not to accept? > You need a warped multi standard world that uses rubber rulers > and malfunctioning clocks to make up for the rubber rulers > and it is all caused by math in your little brain. I need world models that work in the real world. >>> Not so. But then, a 3D program is not the real world. It's >>> a mathematical representation of a 3D world. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Amazing. You have a 3D drawing program that does > weather prediction? I'm impressed. No, I don't have it. I think it was actually a government bank of computers running it. >> There is even one that has been run in reverse to see >> how the planets were formed.. > > Wow! That's some drawing program you've got there. Not me again. a bunch of scientists that make you look really stupid every single day you spout your relativity nonsense. > Perhaps you meant simulation programs? Those I'm > quite familiar with. I've written a few. No, I mean what I said. and I bet your simulation programs totally sucked and even Xbox games blow your sh.t away for REALITY. LOL > You might be interested to know that the more accurate > long term solar system integrations that are done include > special and general relativistic effects. Only in your rubber ruler world. LOL >> Poor Greg. >> You don't really know about any 3D programs at all. > > Sorry to disappoint, but I'm afraid that I do. No, I can tell you have programs modeled with all the rubber ruler stuff and that is why you can not grasp basic 3D. > I'm sure. Lots of fun. Fun and more real than anything that rubber rulers and malfunctioning clocks would come up with. All run on classical physics and old fashion basic geometry. :) > Those are all only 3D Euclidean world models. I'm sure they're > wonderfull for what they are designed to do. They are wonderful, They model reality like nothing you have ever seen. LOL > I need world models that work in the real world. Then you better get used to basic good old 3D with basic good old geometry because that is what is beign proven to work correctly more every day in the gaming worlds. (those guys that are lightyears ahead of your rubber ruler crap.) LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Those are all only 3D Euclidean world models. I'm sure they're >> wonderfull for what they are designed to do. > > They are wonderful, They model reality like nothing you have > ever seen. Now THAT I believe. >>> Those are all only 3D Euclidean world models. I'm sure they're >>> wonderfull for what they are designed to do. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now THAT I believe. So get with the program, Reality is 3D the old fashion way. Euclidian. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 7, 1:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > You obviously are not familiar with the data that show you wrong. > > That's not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > further along that path does not equal 200 miles of traveling along that > path? Think about what you are assuming... When you combine the distances, are you assuming a common interval of time? Why? > LOL > On Jul 7, 1:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When you combine the distances, are you assuming a common interval of > time? Why? Because when you time things, you are supposed to use a single timing standard, not a multiple time standard like you think. You see, single time standards make sure you don't collide with things since everyone would be using the same standard. It is a very old fact that railroads needed to find out the hard way, apparently you wish to repeat the crashing history and let the clock be variable? :) >> On Jul 7, 1:30 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > apparently you wish to repeat the crashing history and let the clock > be variable? Suppose you choose a standard clock on Earth to be your reference, and you are in a spaceship travelling near the speed of light with respect to that clock. For you that clock back on Earth may be observed to be ticking at a rate of one second per day of time as measured on a local on-board clock (its second hand will tick off one second after each day of local ship time). Suppose you need to time something critical (like a spaceship docking maneuver) requiring split second accuracy for a series of steps. Of what use is a clock that ticks at a rate of one second per day? Or one that may run at different rates depending upon your current speed? How would you know when lunch time is if everytime you changed speed the clock runs at a different rate? > Suppose you choose a standard clock on Earth to be > your reference, and you are in a spaceship travelling [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > measured on a local on-board clock (its second hand will > tick off one second after each day of local ship time). You really love your malfunctioning clocks huh? > Suppose you need to time something critical (like a > spaceship docking maneuver) requiring split second accuracy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would you know when lunch time is if everytime you changed > speed the clock runs at a different rate? You would simply crash because you are using a malfunctioning clock instead of fixing the dang clock to match Earth time moron! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Suppose you choose a standard clock on Earth to be >> your reference, and you are in a spaceship travelling [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You would simply crash because you are using a malfunctioning clock > instead of fixing the dang clock to match Earth time moron! Hey bozo, the clock that looks wrong *is* the Earth clock. Since it's the standard, you can't touch it! The local clock runs fine for the locals. >>> Suppose you choose a standard clock on Earth to be >>> your reference, and you are in a spaceship travelling [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > clock. Since it's the standard, you can't touch it! > The local clock runs fine for the locals. The clock that looks wrong from the Earth is yours on the ship a.shole. Stuff that relativity up your curvature dingleberry. f.cking multiple standard dickhead moron. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > >> Suppose you choose a standard clock on Earth to be > >> your reference, and you are in a spaceship travelling [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > clock. Since it's the standard, you can't touch it! > The local clock runs fine for the locals. Spaceman is deadly afraid of crashing. This is why the clock working just fine for the locals (and in fact, everything local operates just as expected, using the time provided by the local clock) isn't adequate, because he's convinced that if that clock doesn't agree with the Earth clock, then there's a crash in the works. He honestly thinks this is what UTC was created for, to prevent crashes and to steer everything from Earth from a centralized clock. PD >>>> Suppose you choose a standard clock on Earth to be >>>> your reference, and you are in a spaceship travelling [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Spaceman is deadly afraid of crashing. Damn right.. at high speeds needed for space travel crashing is the biggest no-no of all things. DUH. You Freakin moron! You like to ignore the "relative" part whenever you can about "relativity" to save it from itself! So sad.. but really funny! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 9, 8:37 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > DUH. > You Freakin moron! I rest my case, Your Honor. The defendant is not guilty on account of being a baboon. > You like to ignore the "relative" part whenever you can about > "relativity" to save it from itself! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman >>>> Suppose you choose a standard clock on Earth to be >>>> your reference, and you are in a spaceship travelling [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > this is what UTC was created for, to prevent crashes and to steer > everything from Earth from a centralized clock. Yup. And he just can't get his brain around the fact that the Earth clock will appear to run at variable rates from the point of view of a ship changing speed with respect to it (and through every orbit of the Earth around the Sun, and every rotation of the Earth on its axis, too). He also seems to think that the people on board a ship who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves unaffected by relativity, and that they would notice their clocks running at different rates and see the Earth clock as running normally by comparison. > Yup. And he just can't get his brain around the fact that > the Earth clock will appear to run at variable rates from > the point of view of a ship changing speed with respect to > it (and through every orbit of the Earth around the Sun, > and every rotation of the Earth on its axis, too). And yet as always, the relativist ignores the relativeness to support relativity. LOL > He also seems to think that the people on board a ship > who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves > unaffected by relativity, and that they would notice > their clocks running at different rates and see the > Earth clock as running normally by comparison. Again, he also thinks the clock in motion is not malfunctioning when only that one clock of the two slows down. He must refuse to look at the traveling clock from the Earths point of view to save his church from falling, Poor Greg. he does not understand the church is not even standing anymore.. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> He also seems to think that the people on board a ship >> who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Again, he also thinks the clock in motion is not malfunctioning > when only that one clock of the two slows down. James still doesn't get it. It's the Earth's clock that appears to have slowed down from the point of view of the ship's personnel. >>> He also seems to think that the people on board a ship >>> who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > appears to have slowed down from the point of view of > the ship's personnel. Greg still needs to ignore relativity that would say the Earth says the guy in the ships clock should have slowed down. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> He also seems to think that the people on board a ship >>>> who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Earth says the guy in the ships clock should have slowed > down. James still doesn't get it. Relativity says that *both* observers see the *other* guy's clock as running slow. He doesn't "get it" because to do so would destroy his idea that some Newtonian effect is causing the moving clock to malfunction. This cannot be the case if both clocks are affected equally by only one of the clocks being taken for a ride. >>>>> He also seems to think that the people on board a ship >>>>> who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > James still doesn't get it. Relativity says that *both* > observers see the *other* guy's clock as running slow. And poor Greg does not know Experiments confirm that the travelers clock ran slower when the clocks are brought back together... proving the clock malfunction occured to at least one clock. Poor Greg, he will never get it. Greg is clock challenged. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>>> He also seems to think that the people on board a ship >>>>>> who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > confirm that the travelers clock ran slower when > the clocks are brought back together... Which of course is a different matter, a different effect beyond the simple time dilation effect. The effect you're referring to is called the Twin Paradox, and has its origin in the difference in the total spacetime paths teraversed by each clock. Note that while each clock is in motion, before they are brought together for comparison, each will "see" the other slowed down compared to its own rate -- the usual Special Relativity time dilation effect. > proving the clock malfunction occured > to at least one clock. Nope. Both clocks appear to be slow to the other as long as they are in relative motion. > Poor Greg, he will never get it. > Greg is clock challenged. James is just challenged. He's challenged by just about everything that is related to science. He's the king of the challenged, a grand master. >>>>>>> He also seems to think that the people on board a ship >>>>>>> who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > slowed down compared to its own rate -- the usual > Special Relativity time dilation effect. LOL so General relativity is wrong according to Special Realtivity. Isn't that Special! ROFLOL >> proving the clock malfunction occured >> to at least one clock. > > Nope. Both clocks appear to be slow to the other > as long as they are in relative motion. Both appear to be slow and one is actually physically slow. You are so funny, and ignorant.. it is even more funny! LOL >> Poor Greg, he will never get it. >> Greg is clock challenged. > > James is just challenged. He's challenged by just about > everything that is related to science. He's the king of the > challenged, a grand master. Poor Greg, he will never learn from the history of clocks. He will remain repeating history forever. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>>>>> He also seems to think that the people on board a ship >>>>>>>> who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > so General relativity is wrong according to Special Realtivity. > Isn't that Special! James will have to expand on that thought, because I can see no reference to General Relativity in the above. >>> proving the clock malfunction occured >>> to at least one clock. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Both appear to be slow and one is actually physically slow. > You are so funny, and ignorant.. it is even more funny! Neither is physically slow in their own frames of reference. It's the other guy's clock that appears to the slow. >>> Poor Greg, he will never get it. >>> Greg is clock challenged. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Poor Greg, he will never learn from the history of clocks. > He will remain repeating history forever. Greg will be sticking to reality for the duration. Whether or not James will ever join the rest of us here is up to him. > >>>>>> He also seems to think that the people on board a ship > >>>>>> who's clocks are affected by relativity are themselves [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > and has its origin in the difference in the total > spacetime paths teraversed by each clock. They are called spacetime paths because they include both temporal and spatial displacements? > Note that > while each clock is in motion, before they are brought > together for comparison, each will "see" the other > slowed down compared to its own rate -- the usual > Special Relativity time dilation effect. > > proving the clock malfunction occured > > to at least one clock. > > Nope. Both clocks appear to be slow to the other > as long as they are in relative motion. No... they will apper faster if moving toward each other. They will violate the relativity principle if they don't match when brought back tothether. "The relativity principle" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html <<To clarify the relation between the classical and relativistic Doppler shift equations, recall that for a classical treatment of a wave with characteristic speed cs in a material medium the Doppler frequency shift depends on whether the emitter or the absorber is moving relative to the fixed medium. >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm Sue... > > Poor Greg, he will never get it. > > Greg is clock challenged. > > James is just challenged. He's challenged by just about > everything that is related to science. He's the king of the > challenged, a grand master. "Sue" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:6f71f8db-531f-4efa-a0d7-9ddb6fb0819a@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message