light is a measure of mass not velocity

Dywyddyr said:
Really.
Exempli gratia: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66746&page=16
Click to expand...
Truly awesome... a link that doesn't work.

It wasn't meant as an insult; it was an observation.
Click to expand...
Keep watching. Maybe I will dance. Call it whatever your deluded mind tells you to call it. From my experience with actual people (personal and observational) it seems when they speak out harshly against someone it is in the intent to maim the soul. Not for constructive criticism.

And you appear to be capable of neither "working" the equation nor understanding the reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...

Since you have obviously found so many errors in my math would you mind pointing them out to my face and insulting me in a demeaning manner?
 
NietzscheHimself said:
Truly awesome... a link that doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Corrected:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66746&highlight=ruthless+logic&page=16

Keep watching. Maybe I will dance. Call it whatever your deluded mind tells you to call it. From my experience with actual people (personal and observational) it seems when they speak out harshly against someone it is in the intent to maim the soul. Not for constructive criticism.
Click to expand...
yeah well, as we have seen, you're not that good at putting 2 and 2 together.

Since you have obviously found so many errors in my math would you mind pointing them out to my face and insulting me in a demeaning manner?
Click to expand...
Tach has shown you the correct maths. But I have little objection to insulting to you if you so desire.
 
NietzscheHimself said:
More like: "I can't follow your reasoning, because you didn't give one, therefore it is incorrect". Which is more or less what I said the first time... Congratulations you have worked yourself "full circle" and forgotten the very reason for which you are arguing. Evidence.
Incorrect assumption. You told me there is no point in trying to compare these and appear to be using that open statement as your "why".
Click to expand...

Let's try something really simple, using your attempt at comparing w(.1,.7) with w(.4,.4):

Case1. Wrt reference frame A you have an object B flying at -0.1c and a second object C flying at +0.7 c. What is the speed of C wrt B?

Case2. Wrt reference frame A you have an object B flying at -0.4c and a second object C flying at +0.4 c. What is the speed of C wrt B?

Are the two above cases comparable? If yes, why ? If no, why not?
Are the two above cases identical? If yes, why? If no, why not?
 
Tach said:
Are the two above cases comparable? If yes, why ? If no, why not?
Click to expand...

Yes. We have been comparing them for quite some time now.

Are the two above cases identical? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Click to expand...

No. The universe is curved which gives a maximum value of c from any reference point. The variations of the numbers are a result of the nature of the curvature of the universe.
 
NietzscheHimself said:
Yes. We have been comparing them for quite some time now.
Click to expand...

Not "we", YOU.


No. The universe is curved which gives a maximum value of c from any reference point. The variations of the numbers are a result of the nature of the curvature of the universe.
Click to expand...


Total non-sequitur. You pretend to know what you are talking about, yet it is clear that you have no clue. Bye.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe my statement following that particular set of math was... and I quote, "...."

Which of course you should have immediately assumed to mean a space ship with its headlights on, seeing as it is the only impossible solution that works.
 
And I did the correct math to get into this clueless state. (obviously not for the 2c part as it was meant to be a joke) I thought you gave up and left seeing as I'm a lost cause and you don't quite know the exact input to bypass my cluelessness. Known as evidence.
 
Crying out for help through all these insults, wishing for nothing more than understanding. Receiving (as I said earlier) nihil coherent applications to my quandries.
 
Nope. Please try again later.

And w=(.1,.7)= .7477as opposed to w=(.4,.4)=.6896 is an even larger difference (.058) which is a fairly significant difference. (approx. 17,400,000 m/s difference)

It just doesn't logically sit right because we could actually be moving .3 towards an object and read a different speed as a point directly centered between them. Which of course is completely irrelevant to the speed the object itself observes as the speed of the other object (.8)

What causes these three different perspectives to differ when they are based off the same two objects?
 
NietzscheHimself said:
Nope. Please try again later.

And w=(.1,.7)= .7477as opposed to w=(.4,.4)=.6896 is an even larger difference (.058) which is a fairly significant difference. (approx. 17,400,000 m/s difference)
Click to expand...

Of course it is since there is no correlation between the two scenarios. Something that you repeatedly fail to understand.


It just doesn't logically sit right because we could actually be moving .3 towards an object and read a different speed as a point directly centered between them.
Click to expand...

Naturally, in SR speed is frame dependent. The fact that you don't know that is your problem.




Which of course is completely irrelevant to the speed the object itself observes as the speed of the other object (.8)
Click to expand...

What is "the speed of the object itself"? Speed is all relative.


What causes these three different perspectives to differ when they are based off the same two objects?
Click to expand...

Frame-dependence. Take a class in basic relativity.
 
Tach said:
Of course it is since there is no correlation between the two scenarios. Something that you repeatedly fail to understand.
Click to expand...

So you are saying we can pick three different points on a line between two objects and come up with three different answers for the total speed between the two objects?
 
NietzscheHimself said:
So you are saying we can pick three different points on a line between two objects and come up with three different answers for the total speed between the two objects?
Click to expand...

What you tried to pick is not three different points, it is three MOVING frames. LEARN.
 
Why didn't you say that yesterday? You probably could have saved yourself some headache... Can you duplicate what my sad example attempted to do?

I'm sure it works, I just obviously don't know how to set it up properly...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top