Re: More speed confusion

On May 29, 1:59 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Peter Riedt" <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:8019d7ca-8f18-4104-a6a2-a6cbb5f54f54@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 28, 11:37 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"Peter Riedt" <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:8a726271-3b2e-4921-87d9-304578c6c705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 28, 2:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Peter Riedt" <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5c5ba431-1bc6-4b43-9195-3f80e7a78b70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 27, 3:30 am, "Paul B. Andersen"

<paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Riedt wrote:
Androcles, excellent and comprehensive derivation resulting in the
answer 1=1.

To which I like to add, if we add the speed of light to any other
speed up to 300000km/sec, the answer is always 300000km/sec but if
we
subtract the speed of an object from the speed of light using the
formula(c-v)/(1+c*v/c^2)[negative closing speed as in source and
target approaching each other] the result is less than c-v e.g.
for 300000km/sec-30km/sec the composite speed is not 299970km/sec
but
299940.006km/sec. However if both c and v are 300000km/sec, they
approach each other at a whopping c-v = 0km/sec!

Peter Riedt

The correct formula is: (c-v)/(1-c*v/c^2) = c

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Paul, agreed.
(300000-300000)/(1-300000*300000/300000*300000)=0

========================================
So you agree Tusseladd's c = 0.
You are both raving mad and YOU, Riedt, left out the
parentheses!

(300000-300000)/(1- [300000*300000]/[300000*300000])

=(300000-300000)/(1-90000000000/90000000000)
=(300000-300000)/(1-1)
= 0/0
= Divide by zero.

FAILED!

Riedt's gaffe:
(300000-300000)/(1-300000*300000/300000*300000)=0

Parsing left to right,
(300000-300000)/(1-90000000000/300000*300000)

(300000-300000)/(1-30000*300000)
(300000-300000)/(1-90000000000)
0/ (-89999999999) = 0

But c-v = 0 when v = c anyway, you pair of idiotic cretins.

For Riedt's education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsing

(Follow-ups set to alt.morons )- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Androcles, if you insert additional parentheses as you did, the answer
is division by zero
=============================================
That's what the spread*** says!

but if you leave it as Paul suggested i.e. (c-v)/
(1-c*v/c^2, the answer is 0.
============================================

Tusseladd can no more pull equations out of his arse than Einstein can.
Einstein's idiotic equation is given in
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif
(LOOK IT UP!)

"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
obtain
V = (c+w) / (1+ w/c) = c

It doesn't matter if you use u, v, or w for the velocity, it is still the
velocity.

If we set w = -v (i.e. travel backwards), then we can directly substitute:
V = (c+ -v) / (1+ -v/c) = c

If I have a spread*** and set cell A1 to 1, A2 to 1 and A3 to A1+A2
then A3 will display 2 .

If I then set A2 to -1 then A3 will display 0.
That's VERY basic algebra, which Tusseladd cannot manage.

==============================================

But this 0 is not = c as Paul indicated;
==============================================
So why did you agree with the moron? It's people like you that
spread confusion.
And don't call him "Paul", he's a Norwegian troll (tusseladd).
==============================================
it is the composite speed of two objects (including two rays of light)
approaching each other at c (negative closing speed). It means that if
two particles at 300000km/sec each try to collide, they never can
because their combined speed is zero, nada, zilch, nix.

Peter Riedt
===============================================
Absolute nonsense. I see cars coming toward me at -140 mph
every day and they are only travelling at -70 mph with respect to
the road.
The car directly in front of me that is doing 70 mph w.r.t. the road isn't
getting any further from me, it is doing 0 mph relative to me.

How you can ever hope to understand Einstein's con when you
can't even manage to add numbers for an opening speed is astounding.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Androcles et al, this is the end to the confusion: If two particles
are in direct collision say at a speed of 300000km/sec each, their
closing speed is 600000km/sec e.g. the distance between them shrinks
at that speed.

Peter Riedt
============================================
Right, Riedt.
Right, Galileo.
Right, Newton.

Wrong, Tusseladd.
Wrong, Einstein.
Wrong, Minkowski.

And it does happen if they ever make LHC work, so you can throw
special relativity in the trash can because theoretical physicists are
miserable failed mathematicians.
Here's another one:
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm

"
So the only information about electromagnetism contained in the
apparently sophisticated equations (9) and (10) is about the two
constants in electromagnetism: the fixed velocity c, and that E, H at
every point are in fixed proportion Z0. The remaining content of
Maxwell’s Equations is hogwash.
"

Thanks for the link. Funilly enough, this is what I suspected, however
I cannot prove it.

Is the world really so messed up?
.