Re: The speed of light revisited


Spaceman wrote:
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:NDoJf.47073$T35.761782@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d6udnYYEoeHyiWveRVn-gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1140199007.399322.233340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One liter of ethanol has the same volume as one liter of water. They
are identical units.

They are not identical units of substance
You lose.
and you are still a moron an have no clue
what identical means.


You don't understand what Greg Neil is saying, you don't understand
what I am saying. You are stuck in your own little world, as usual.

I understand very well what you are stating,
you are stating that non identical things are identical.
You both are being complete morons.

If you can't give the distinguishing characteristics
of different types of mass, then there is no valid
reason for claiming that there are different types.

the differences are there.
you call one alcohol, you call one water.
You still have no clue about what identical means huh?


If you put a kg of lead in a sealed box, and a kilogram
of sand in another, pump out all the air so that differences
in volume of air don't interfere, then how could you
distinguish one box from another by testing its mass?

Again,
you prove that you have no clue what identical means.
To prove things are identical, you need to compare
them to each other in every aspect, not just mass.
Sheesh, you haven nothing better than your twist logic
and your ignorance of what identical means.

Then you have no business combining velocities like u+v.
One is a velocity of an object in a reference frame A. The other is the
velocity of reference frame A with respect to reference frame B. Since
they are not identical in "every aspect", they are not "identicals".

The proper way to combine these velocities is (u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2).

PD

.

Relevant Pages