 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / October 2006Faster than Light?
Faster than Light? The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. However, we know from experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket vehicles etc) that the final velocity of objects is their starting velocity plus their own velocity. There is no reason to believe a maximum applies. A spaceship travels away from star X at a speed of 300,000km/sec (v1). The spaceship fires off a rocket from its nose. It has a velocity of 100km/sec (v2). The speed of the rocket is now 300,100km/sec (v1+v2), i.e. the rocket travels away from star X at 300,100km/sec. Special relativity however demands it can only be 300,000km/sec, the maximum velocity allowed by the theory. This is only possible if the speed of the rocket is reduced to zero or the speed of the space ship at the moment of the firing is reduced to 299,900km/sec or a combination of the two. SR, by insisting on the maximum speed limit, requires the reduction in the existing speeds and assumes that it does happen. It cannot provide evidence or even a theory to explain how the reduction is possible or occurs except that the Dutch physicist Lorentz asserted that all bodies in motion are subject to the Lorentz transforms. As a consequence, their length contracts in proportion to their speed, their time is slowed down reciprocally to the length decrease and their mass increases until at the speed of c, length and time equals zero, mass is infinite and no greater velocity than c is possible. The transforms were invented to account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) which compared the times taken by a ray of light in the direction of the motion of the earth and perpendicularly to it over an equal distance. The relativity pioneer Poincare wrote in his 1897 paper 'The Relativity of Space' Quote: Lorentz could have accounted for the facts (of the null result of MMX) by supposing that the velocity of light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the latter. End of quote. However, Lorentz had a third choice to account for the null result. He could have assumed that instead of a contraction of the parallel arm of the MMX interferometer equipment, an expansion of the perpendicular arm had taken place. This would also have explained the null result with equal justification but the three relativistic effects would have been reversed - i.e. proportionally to the speed, the perpendicular arm and time would have expanded and the mass would have been reduced. Needless to say that both contraction and expansion conjectures are untenable. The solution to the null result of MMX is quite different. Peter Riedt Ps If you like fairytales, download one from www.freewebs.com/djingatilla > The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects > cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. To be more accurate, not the motion but the *speed*. >However, we know from > experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket > vehicles etc) that the final velocity of objects is their starting > velocity plus their own velocity. We know from experience??? What experience (experiment) has shown that? The equivalent experiment is often done in labs with highspeed particles, emmiting other particles in the 'forward' direction. The speed of these emmited particles has never been measured to be greater than c and has never been measured as "v1+v2". And what do you mean by "starting velocity" a nd "own velocity"? Wrt what these velocites are measured ? Answer those first then we will continue. >> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects >> cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Answer those first then we will continue. Peter Riedt is one of those notorious top-class experimentalists who has done an experiment where a velocity of exactly 1 m/s was combined with a velocity of exactly 1 m/s and it gave exactly 2.00000000000000000 m/s as opposed to the 1.99999999999999998 m/s that is predicted by the theory. Together with Androcles, Jim Greenfield, Vertner Vergon, John Polasek, and Mike (aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable aka Eleatis) he will be nominated for the Nobel-prize next year. Dirk Vdm | >> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects | >> cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | | Dirk Vdm Dork demonstrates his imbecility yet again. > >> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects > >> cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Dirk Vdm And let's not forget r. b. winn whose cow-orker watched some metal beams being driven around on a truck and observed no length contraction; thereby falsifying the notion of length contraction. Paul Cardinale >> >> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects >> >> cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > beams being driven around on a truck and observed no length > contraction; thereby falsifying the notion of length contraction. :-) Do you think he was serious? Dirk Vdm In sci.physics.relativity, Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:37:11 GMT <H26_g.139446$Rw1.2460786@phobos.telenet-ops.be>: [snippage] >>> Peter Riedt is one of those notorious top-class experimentalists >>> who has done an experiment where a velocity of exactly 1 m/s [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Unfortunately in his particulra case it's very difficult to tell... :-)  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111: while(bit&BITMASK) ; -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects > >> cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Dirk, yes, 1 plus 1 equals 2 to any number of decimals. Peter Riedt >> >> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects >> >> cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Dirk, yes, 1 plus 1 equals 2 to any number of decimals. And 1 times 1 equals 1 to any number of decimals. And 1 minus 1 equals 0 to any number of decimals. Brilliant argument. My sincere congratulations Dirk Vdm > >> >> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects > >> >> cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Dirk, you are rarely right but on this occasion the depth of your knowledge outshines the sun. Never be discouraged in your quest for smiting the unbelievers and congratulations in return. Peter Riedt >> >> >> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects >> >> >> cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Dirk, you are rarely right but on this occasion the depth of your > knowledge outshines the sun. Unfortunately I can't take this as a compliment, since you so obviously and miserably failed to get the point (which for obvious reasons I will not even try to explain), and since you are too overall dumb to have a relevant opinion on other people's knowledge to begin with. But thanks for the effort anyway. Dirk Vdm > Never be discouraged in your quest for smiting the unbelievers and > congratulations in return. > > Peter Riedt | Unfortunately I can't take this as a compliment, since you | so obviously and miserably failed to get the point (which | for obvious reasons I will not even try to explain), HAHAHAHA! The obvious reason being you cannot explain any point at all, you total fuckwit! > | Unfortunately I can't take this as a compliment, since you > | so obviously and miserably failed to get the point (which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The obvious reason being you cannot explain any point at all, you total > fuckwit! I don't think anyone can explain any point to a retard like Riedt, let alone to dog sh.t like you ;-) Dirk Vdm > > | Unfortunately I can't take this as a compliment, since you > > | so obviously and miserably failed to get the point (which [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Dirk, you dissapoint me. With your superior intellect and command of communication skills, I would have thought you can explain anything to anybody. Try to improve! Peter Riedt | > > | Unfortunately I can't take this as a compliment, since you | > > | so obviously and miserably failed to get the point (which [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | Peter Riedt You should ask him to explain how "xor" implies "or" but doesn't imply "and". I've got 4 or 5 fumbles on that one, I'm going for the record. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif Androcles > | > "Androcles" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_d> wrote in message > news:dT30h.21930$3x1.15447@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You should ask him to explain how "xor" implies "or" but doesn't imply > "and". http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html Dirk Vdm > I've got 4 or 5 fumbles on that one, I'm going for the record. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif > > Androcles | > | > "Androcles" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_d> wrote in message | > news:dT30h.21930$3x1.15447@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html | http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html | http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html | http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | > | > Androcles v^ = (-v)^2 --- oops, a moortel fumball. http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html C'mon, local village dog tord, give me another fumble for http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif :-) "xor" implies "and", I've got all three lights on. Right, Dork Van de psycho? Androcles > C'mon, local village dog tord, give me another fumble for > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif :-) > "xor" implies "and", I've got all three lights on. Right, Dork Van de > psycho? That one is almost too easy. Your circuit is giving NOT XOR, you need to cross the wires between the switches. >>| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html >>| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html >>| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html >> C'mon, local village dog tord, give me another fumble for >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif :-) >> "xor" implies "and", I've got all three lights on. Right, Dork Van de psycho? > > That one is almost too easy. Your circuit is giving NOT XOR, you need to cross the wires between the switches. Don't bother explaining... He is a self-declared "electronic engineer, professionally", apparently a breed immune to logic, as can be seen. Dirk Vdm | > C'mon, local village dog tord, give me another fumble for | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | That one is almost too easy. Your circuit is giving NOT XOR, | you need to cross the wires between the switches. Well done. "xor implies or" -- Dork Van de psycho. Hence: [1 xor 1] implies [1 or 1] therefore 0 implies 1 Who is the shithead? Androcles > | > C'mon, local village dog tord, give me another fumble for > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif :-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > [1 xor 1] implies [1 or 1] > therefore 0 implies 1 p q p => q 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html > Who is the shithead? > Androcles Indeed Dirk Vdm > | > C'mon, local village dog tord, give me another fumble for > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif :-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > [1 xor 1] implies [1 or 1] > therefore 0 implies 1 Assuming the standard usage that 0 is false, and 1 is true, yes, you are correct for once. In implication with a false antecedent or a true consequent is true. <0 implies 1> satisfies both conditions. It is basic logic. > Who is the shithead? > Androcles >> | > C'mon, local village dog tord, give me another fumble for >> | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif :-) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Assuming the standard usage that 0 is false, and 1 is true, yes, you are correct for once. In implication with a false antecedent > or a true consequent is true. <0 implies 1> satisfies both conditions. It is basic logic. But he thinks he's talking gibberish :-) I have added this one, together with the gif, to the list: http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORforever.html Not much reason for optimism yet ;-) Dirk Vdm | > | > C'mon, local village dog tord, give me another fumble for | > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/XorOr.gif :-) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | antecedent or a true consequent is true. <0 implies 1> | satisfies both conditions. It is basic logic. We don't assume in basic logic and there are no caveats. We'll just leave it that I'm correct and Dork is a fuckwit. You failed to answer the question which implies you are a failure: Who is the shithead? Androcles |> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects | > cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. | | To be more accurate, not the motion but the *speed*. If you want to be pedantic, my car always exceeds the speed of its brake and taillights unless I'm reversing, in which case it then exceeds the speed of its headlights. | >However, we know from | > experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | We know from experience??? What experience (experiment) has shown | that? Walking down the aisle of a bus. Firing a bullet from a plane. Travelling across the Earth as you go around the sun. If you think you can subtract 18.5 miles per second from your velocity, you'll fall straight down and hit the sun. | The equivalent experiment is often done in labs with highspeed | particles, emmiting other particles in the 'forward' direction. The | speed of these emmited particles has never been measured to be greater | than c and has never been measured as "v1+v2". Bullshit, and learn to spell "emitted". One can usually tell imbecility by the inability to even employ a spelling checker. | And what do you mean by "starting velocity" a nd "own velocity"? He means you are fuckin' moron. All velocities are relative. Two cars each have speed 60 mph. If they are travelling in opposite directions the relative speed is 120 mph and if they collide they get damaged. If they are travelling in the same direction that cannot collide. That's the difference between speed and velocity. Writing it down, 60mph+60mph = 120mph. 60mph-60mph = 0 mph. Wrt | what these velocites are measured ? Exactly. The velocities are measured wrt the road, the Earth, the sun, the result is always v3 = v1 +v2. | Answer those first then we will continue. No we won't, you can shut the f.ck up until you've learned everyday experience. We know from experience (e.g. cars on highways etc.) that the final velocity of objects is their starting velocity plus their own velocity. We call that the "Principle of Relativity". Androcles > | To be more accurate, not the motion but the *speed*. > > If you want to be pedantic <SNIP> I was too picky on that one. > | We know from experience??? What experience (experiment) has shown > | that? > > Walking down the aisle of a bus. Wrong. A fixed observer on the ground measures the speed of a bus to be 20 km/h. Inside the bust, someone is walking at speed 4 km/h wrt the bus. The observer outside measures the speed of the walker inside the bus. We do NOT obtain 20+4 = 24 km/h. That is experimental fact. (not done with buses of course) > Bullshit, and learn to spell "emitted". One can usually tell imbecility > by the inability to even employ a spelling checker. *usually* is apropriate here. Now I know how to spell 'emitted' (I am not english). I did not want to use a spell cheker bcause i knew that all would have understood 'emmitted'. > | And what do you mean by "starting velocity" a nd "own velocity"? > > He means you are fuckin' moron. Wrong, he does not mean that. >All velocities are relative. > Two cars each have speed 60 mph. If they are travelling in opposite > directions the relative speed is 120 mph and if they collide they > get damaged. If they are travelling in the same direction that cannot > collide. That's the difference between speed and velocity. > Writing it down, 60mph+60mph = 120mph. 60mph-60mph = 0 mph. Thats correct, but is that what the original poster meant? And 60mph wrt grnd + 60mph wrt fist car <> 120 mph wrt grnd. Experimental fact. |> | To be more accurate, not the motion but the *speed*. | > | > If you want to be pedantic <SNIP> Ok, snipped as requested. Did you have something to say? > Ok, snipped as requested. > Did you have something to say? Yes, but its useless to discuss with you since you snip everything out when you are showed wrong. But hey, thats the way u are... |> Ok, snipped as requested. | > Did you have something to say? | | Yes, but its useless to discuss with you since you snip everything out | when you are showed wrong. But hey, thats the way u are... You've snipped again. It's useless to discuss with you since you snip everything out when you are showed wrong. But hey!, that's the way YOU are... If you want a *discussion* then don't snip, shithead, or I'll do as you REQUESTED, fuckwit. If you want to show me wrong, do it without snipping. The only reason you have for snipping is to avoid answering and hide the evidence, imbecile. Snip again to prove you can't, moron: |> The theory of relativity claims that the motion of physical objects | > cannot exceed a speed of 300,000km/sec. | | To be more accurate, not the motion but the *speed*. If you want to be pedantic, my car always exceeds the speed of its brake and taillights unless I'm reversing, in which case it then exceeds the speed of its headlights. | >However, we know from | > experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | We know from experience??? What experience (experiment) has shown | that? Walking down the aisle of a bus. Firing a bullet from a plane. Travelling across the Earth as you go around the sun. If you think you can subtract 18.5 miles per second from your velocity, you'll fall straight down and hit the sun. | The equivalent experiment is often done in labs with highspeed | particles, emmiting other particles in the 'forward' direction. The | speed of these emmited particles has never been measured to be greater | than c and has never been measured as "v1+v2". Bullshit, and learn to spell "emitted". One can usually tell imbecility by the inability to even employ a spelling checker. | And what do you mean by "starting velocity" a nd "own velocity"? He means you are fuckin' moron. All velocities are relative. Two cars each have speed 60 mph. If they are travelling in opposite directions the relative speed is 120 mph and if they collide they get damaged. If they are travelling in the same direction that cannot collide. That's the difference between speed and velocity. Writing it down, 60mph+60mph = 120mph. 60mph-60mph = 0 mph. Wrt | what these velocites are measured ? Exactly. The velocities are measured wrt the road, the Earth, the sun, the result is always v3 = v1 +v2. | Answer those first then we will continue. No we won't, you can shut the f.ck up until you've learned everyday experience. We know from experience (e.g. cars on highways etc.) that the final velocity of objects is their starting velocity plus their own velocity. We call that the "Principle of Relativity". Androcles > If you want a *discussion* then don't snip, shithead, or I'll ??? But I dont snip you. Yes I do remove *some* unnecessary parts, but I keep the main part, the part of interest, just as you do, as everyone else does !! You are the one who simps out the important parts and you should stop doing that if you want to have an intelligent conversation. This discussion is now irrelevant and has nothing to do with the main thread. Start another thread if you whish. |> If you want a *discussion* then don't snip, shithead, or I'll | | ??? But I dont snip you. f.cking liar, piss off. *plonk* Androcles. > No we won't, you can shut the f.ck up until you've learned > everyday experience. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We call that the "Principle of Relativity". > Androcles Actually, *you* may call that the Principle of Relativity" but I don't know of anyone else sensible that does. All you've learned from your experience is the usefulness of a simple approximation. You may have also learned the convenient approximation that e^x = 1 +x + x^2/2, which is also quite simple to compute, but just an approximation nonetheless. PD | > No we won't, you can shut the f.ck up until you've learned | > everyday experience. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | Actually, *you* may call that the Principle of Relativity" but I don't | know Of course you don't, and you refuse to learn. | of anyone else sensible that does. I doubt you know anyone sensible. You certainly don't know me. "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"... yada yada yada... Examples of this sort -- yada yada yada -- will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity''. Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ | All you've learned from your experience is the usefulness of a simple | approximation. You haven't learnt that much. | You may have also learned the convenient approximation that | e^x = 1 +x + x^2/2, which is also quite simple to compute, but just an | approximation nonetheless. I said the PoR is the EXACT vector addition of velocities, do you deny that? Androcles > | All you've learned from your experience is the usefulness of a simple > | approximation. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I said the PoR is the EXACT vector addition of velocities, do you deny that? Yes, indeed, I deny that. I don't know where you got the impression that the PoR is the EXACT vector addition of velocities. Was that in an engineering course? PD | > | All you've learned from your experience is the usefulness of a simple | > | approximation. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | Yes, indeed, I deny that. Ok, well, I'll repeat it. The PoR is the EXACT vector addition of velocities. Do you still deny I said that? | I don't know Of course you don't. You are fuckin' clueless. Androcles > | > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in > messagenews:1161381431.474910.273740@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The PoR is the EXACT vector addition of velocities. > Do you still deny I said that? I've never denied that you said that. You've said many stupid and erroneous things, your statement about the PoR being the EXACT vector addition of velocities being one of them. What other stupid and erroneous things would you like to add to the list? PD > | I don't know > > Of course you don't. You are fuckin' clueless. > Androcles | > | Yes, indeed, I deny that. | > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | I've never denied that you said that. Yes you did. You also stated "I don't know", Google has a record of it. Androcles. > | > | Yes, indeed, I deny that. > | > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yes you did. You also stated "I don't know", Google has a record of it. > Androcles. Androcles finds himself reduced to semantic quibbling over grave concerns like: - whether "Geschwindigkeit" means "speed" or "Geschwindigkeit" means "velocity" and what minor confusion can be obtained by switching capriciously - whether "average speed" means the average of the magnitude or the magnitude of the average and what minor confusion can be obtained by switching capriciously - whether "I said Einstein was a boob, do you deny that?" means "Do you deny that Einstein was a boob?" or "Do you deny that I said that Einstein was a boob?" and what minor confusion can be obtained by switching capriciously. I imagine its a terrible realization for him that he is now devoting his time and attention to pointless heckling. PD | > | > | Yes, indeed, I deny that. | > | > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | Androcles finds himself unable to communicate with a soliloquy by a fuckwit bigot who only snips what Androcles says. > | > | > | Yes, indeed, I deny that. > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > unable to communicate with a soliloquy by a fuckwit bigot who only snips > what Androcles says. In that case, Androcles has descended to only semantic quibbling and whining about a netiquette policy he finds annoying. PD | > | > | > | Yes, indeed, I deny that. | > | > | > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | In that case, Androcles has descended to only semantic quibbling and | whining about a netiquette policy he finds annoying. It is your policy to snip when beaten. And you are. That doesn't annoy me at all, fuckwit bigot, I win. Having written words that offend you, I chortle when you snip. The PoR is the EXACT vector addition of velocities, by axiom. "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity (c-v)/(1+w/c), so that t = x' * (1+w/c)/(c-v) with the help of the equations of transformation developed in section 5" - Not Einstein. <chortle> Androcles Androcles > It is your policy to snip when beaten. No, actually, Androcles, you're wrong again. It's my policy to snip you when it seems like an amusing opportunity to irritate you, nothing more. Furthermore you are under the mistaken impression that something you've said has ever offended me. I'm not offended by buffoons, I'm amused by them. > And you are. In your mind, Androcles. Of course, in your mind, it's an axiom that the PoR is the EXACT vector addition of velocities. Of course, in your mind, there is a whole attic full of contused mathematics, idiotic assertions, and a whole trunkful of physical oxymorons. > That doesn't annoy me at all, fuckwit bigot, I win. > Having written words that offend you, I chortle when you snip. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Androcles | > It is your policy to snip when beaten. | | No, actually, Androcles, I'm right again. > | > It is your policy to snip when beaten. > | > | No, actually, Androcles, > I'm right again. It is Androcles's policy to have the last word, apparently, even if it is completely devoid of content. :>) PD | > | > It is your policy to snip when beaten. | > | [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | It is Androcles's policy to have the last word, apparently, even if it | is completely devoid of content. :>) It's far easier to simply disagree with you than present any argument you won't read, can't read or are unable to respond to, logical debate with a bigot such as you is pointless. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] BOOM! BOOM! >> | To be more accurate, not the motion but the *speed*. >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >And 60mph wrt grnd + 60mph wrt fist car <> 120 mph wrt grnd. >Experimental fact. What bloody experiment? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm (another world-shattering announcement coming soon) | >> | To be more accurate, not the motion but the *speed*. | >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] | | What bloody experiment? The one in the fuckwit's empty head, of course. Where've you been hiding? I've been kicking Tusselad's arse. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/stream.gif | Faster than Light? | [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] | Ps If you like fairytales, download one from | www.freewebs.com/djingatilla We are sorry, this page was not found. > | Faster than Light? > | [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > We are sorry, this page was not found. Zaubermeister, the Internet is supposed to be a vehicle for the freedom of expression but sometimes it is not. Try www.freewebs.com/djingattila outside of Google or www.freewebs.com and then ask for djingattalia or sinomore. Thanks for your information. Peter Riedt > > | Faster than Light? > > | [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Peter Riedt | > | Faster than Light? | > | [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] | | Peter Riedt Ok, thanks. It worked today. I had to give up after a paragraph, it reminded me of "See Spot run". It's just my personal taste but I take the view that sentences should be neither too clipped nor too long in literature lest the reading thereof becomes a chore and detracts from the amusement. > | Faster than Light? > | [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > We are sorry, this page was not found. Zaubermeister, the correct address is www.freewebs.com/djingattila. Thanks for the information. Peter Riedt If light cannot travel faster than light, how could anything else? In order to get something physical up to that speed would use all of the energy in the universe. > If light cannot travel faster than light, how could anything else? In > order to get something physical up to that speed would use all of the > energy in the universe. You can not run faster than yourself. > > If light cannot travel faster than light, how could anything else? In > > order to get something physical up to that speed would use all of the > > energy in the universe. > > You can not run faster than yourself. v4, yes you can. If you are running in a moving train to the front, you are running faster than the train and faster than yourself relative to the landscape outside. Peter Riedt > we know from > experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket > vehicles etc) that the final velocity of objects is their starting > velocity plus their own velocity. Today only someone with VERY limited experience would say that. There are literally zillions of observations for which this is not true. Specifically, high-energy decays -- the decay products of an unstable high energy particle do NOT travel faster than c in the lab, even though in many cases the decay products travel ~c in the rest frame of the original particle, and the original particle travels ~c relative to the lab. Simple vector addition does NOT work, by very large factors. Tom Roberts http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/physics/magueijo.htm http://frontwheeldrive.com/joao_magueijo.html -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! > > we know from > > experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Tom Roberts | > we know from | > experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | Today only someone with VERY limited experience would say that. = rant. | There are literally zillions of observations for which this is not true. = rant. | Specifically, high-energy decays -- the decay products of an unstable | high energy particle do NOT travel faster than c in the lab, even though | in many cases the decay products travel ~c in the rest frame of the | original particle, and the original particle travels ~c relative to the lab. = rant. | Simple vector addition does NOT work, by very large factors. = rant. This does not work, by very large factors: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif. You are an idiot, Roberts, by very large factors. Androcles > > we know from > > experience (e.g. equatorial rocket launchings, multistage rocket [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Tom Roberts Tom, you are correct if you accept the Lorentz transforms. I do not and have explained the reason why they are incorrect in the second part of my post. Peter Riedt > Faster than Light? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > velocity plus their own velocity. There is no reason to believe a > maximum applies. We know from experience (experiments with fast moving objects) quite the contrary. Thus your starting base is erroneous. Harald | > Faster than Light? | > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | We know from experience (experiments with fast moving objects) quite the | contrary. Thus your starting base is erroneous. We know YOU are a lying sh.t. You are not "we". Thus your starting base is erroneous. Androcles |
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.