 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / August 2008Beam Me Up, Scotty!
Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? > Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? Depends on what frames you are talking about. :) 2 opposite sides of a spherical source of light will of course have 2c as the seperating speed of lightspeed one direction wrt the lightspeed in opposite other direction. Basic math tells it all. Ignore any transforms.. they only give you "optical illusion" of seperating speeds. :) On Aug 30, 9:47 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of seperating speeds. > :) And here I was thinking it would be zero! > On Aug 30, 9:47 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > And here I was thinking it would be zero! Well, I don't know how you would get 0 but if you use the silly transform stuff, it would come up with a seperation speed of less than c. But that would kinda screw up the light on at least one side. :) The basic math does not lie, 1c+1c=2c  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Aug 30, 10:09 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Aug 30, 9:47 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Spaceman, not a "trained" physicist, I got zero because if nothing can travel faster than lightspeed, and you attain lightspeed, then you must be standing still. Sort of like asking, how fast is a 100 MPH train going relative to another train going 100 MPH? You know, sort of cancel each other out, right? I just wish these SR people could explain these things to us normal folks. If something is this counter-intuitive, this difficult to grasp by otherwise intelligent, then there has to be something seriously wrong with their theories. If they can't explain it very well, then they must not grasp it very well themselves. > On Aug 30, 10:09 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > train going relative to another train going 100 MPH? You know, sort of > cancel each other out, right? Well, That would be true for identical speeds moving in the same direction only. change the direction even slightly of one and the "at rest" of 0 becomes higher than 0. > I just wish these SR people could explain these things to us normal > folks. If something is this counter-intuitive, this difficult to grasp > by otherwise intelligent, then there has to be something seriously > wrong with their theories. If they can't explain it very well, then > they must not grasp it very well themselves. They can not explain things "normally" because normally SR all fails the most basic math there is such as 1c+1c=2c. So they need to come up with all sorts of "rubber ruler" tricks, AKA "transforms". Yet the transforms actually fail basic math when compared to the basic math alone. So they do not wish to "explain" that they are actually blowing smoke out of thier a.ses to try and get more government grants to do a bunch of nothing for a lot of money. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Aug 30, 11:22 am, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? Hey, what is the speed of that car going by relative to the speed of the dog walking on the sidewalk? Hey, trying asking a question that begins to make sense. Hey, what's your objective with these posts? PD > On Aug 30, 11:22 am, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > PD Well, PD, if the car is going 60 MPH and the dog is walking 2 MPH, the relative speed of the car is 58 MPH. What's so hard about that? > > On Aug 30, 11:22 am, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Well, PD, if the car is going 60 MPH and the dog is walking 2 MPH, the > relative speed of the car is 58 MPH. What's so hard about that? That's the speed of the car relative to the dog, not relative to the speed of the dog. Relative speed between two objects makes some sense. But you asked about the speed of light relative to the speed of light. This does not appear to be about relative speed between two objects, and in fact makes little sense. Care to try again? PD >>> On Aug 30, 11:22 am, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's the speed of the car relative to the dog, not relative to the > speed of the dog. Relative speed between two objects makes some sense. Poor PD, You do not get that the speed is relative to the dog (and relative to the dogs speeed) since the dogs speed is relavant to the relative speed of the car. Everything is "relative" when it comes to relative speed. Sheesh PD. I thought you understood relative motion. I see you don't really even understand that either now. > But you asked about the speed of light relative to the speed of light. Yes, And it makes sense but he did not give direction, He later implied he thought the answer would be 0 and the would imply he meant the speed of light relative to the speed of light both heading in the same direction. Hence a 0 relative speed. > This does not appear to be about relative speed between two objects, > and in fact makes little sense. Care to try again? It makes sense, You make no sense. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman > > > On Aug 30, 11:22 am, obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - PD, then let me frame it another way, OK? If a spaceship moving in deep, "empty" space at half the speed of light and turns on a beam of light, how fast will that beam of light race away from the spaceship? Similarly, with the two trains traveling in the same direction wrt our frame, can't it be said that for all intents and purposes there is no motion to any observer in each frame? So, and forgive my ignorance here, if the speed of light is the absolute limit, then wouldn't it follow that there IS no motion whatever to anything which is a part of this frame of refference, or existing in this frame? Like the two trains in the same frame, motion, per se, would make no sense - or would it? What am I missing here? I just cannot get my mind around this. To my way of thinking, lightspeed itself cannot make any sense absent the existence of yet another larger frame of reference, ad infinitum. > Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? Worse posting than spaceshit's! Crack a physics book. > obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > > Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? > > Worse posting than spaceshit's! > Crack a physics book. Sam, crack this, you f.cking Dickhead! Many otherwise highly- accomplished people visit this group, and most of them don't understand a god-damned thing you self-absorbed shitheads assert. See anything wrong with this picture, a.shole? >> obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > understand a god-damned thing you self-absorbed shitheads assert. See > anything wrong with this picture, a.shole? In a physics newsgroup, we talk mostly physics... I suggesting that you might want to do a bit of self education in the areas of classical and modern physics. You seem unhappy. > >> obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You seem unhappy. And you seem, er, like a physicist. I win! >>>> obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>>> Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And you seem, er, like a physicist. I win! Sam is one of the ignorant types that thinks the shortest "physical" distance between two points is a curved line. He is one of the brainwashed beyond repair rubber ruler church-goers. He is not "really" a physicist anymore since he lost the "physical parts of physics" long ago. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Aug 30, 12:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >>>> obamas_ins...@yahoo.com wrote: > >>>>> Hey, what is the speed of light relative to the speed of light? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Spaceman, all I am honestly trying to do is learn a few things. I honestly do not understand many of these things, and I am a professional man myself. Astronomy is a hobby of mine, and I just finished building, from the ground up, a 10" Newtonian reflector telescope, no mean accomplishment. Works beautifully, and on good nights I can see the rings around Saturn and the red clouds circling Jupiter. I can't be THAT f.cking stupid, Spaceman. I am also a pretty wealthy guy - didn't get that way being a moron either. Anyway, Spaceman, just about every book written on SR, even those ostensibly written for the layman, are totally inaccessible for most people. They claim to "understand" how these things can be, but fail miserably in stating it in a way so that someone else can grasp it. It's like someone asking a mechanic what was wrong with the car, and how he fixed it, and the mechanic telling them to go read a book on automobile repair. > On Aug 30, 12:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Jupiter. I can't be THAT f.cking stupid, Spaceman. I am also a pretty > wealthy guy - didn't get that way being a moron either. That must be a "sweet" telescope and I would say that does place you in the "non stupid" container especially since you would have had to use "striaght line" engineering and must understand the most basic of geometry very well to do such. :) To "understand the bullshit" they spout, you really would have to remove logic, but of course, being a smart man, you can not do that without good cause and so far not one good cause has been shown to require you to do such, so.. Don't worry about it. The "religion" they wish to teach is just that.." a religion" it is not actually part of science to anyone that has accepted the basic rules of science and having "single standards for distance an time" like most any good scientist uses to find out facts about anything. > Anyway, Spaceman, just about every book written on SR, even those > ostensibly written for the layman, are totally inaccessible for most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > how he fixed it, and the mechanic telling them to go read a book on > automobile repair. I am a semi retired mechanic and I know what you mean. It is a disgrace to all physicists when the "rubber ruler" relativists, say crap like that. It also proves if they can not "teach" it, they really do not "know" it either. :) It is pretty silly how a mechanic like myself seems to be able to "teach" what is occuring better than the "relativists" can actually do. And even more sad is "what I teach" has absolutely 0 paradoxes involved. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman On Aug 30, 1:45 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Aug 30, 12:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for the kind words, Spaceman. I appreciate it. > On Aug 30, 1:45 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > Thanks for the kind words, Spaceman. I appreciate it. No problem. Anytime. :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.