Re: The speed of light revisited

"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:svqdnVRtJcUyI2reRVn-ig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BOOJf.51038$T35.938760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CoudnWQsGLgKK2reRVn-jw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:NhOJf.49831$T35.934796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:06-dnWC3aYw2MGrenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ePNJf.48770$T35.931735@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry, I must have not have parses your statement the
way you indendend. Adding speeds in the same direction
is equivalent to adding parallel velocities.

So adding parallel velocities works with basic math?

For low velocities, velocities can be added by standard
vector addition (simple addition of vector components).
For parallel vectors, the magnitudes can be added directly
and the direction is unchanged. Note that this only
applies for low velocities (w.r.t. c).

Greg,
How do you add more numbers per second to come
up with the units of the number themsleves changed?
It is a complete conflict with basic addition of identical
objects.

You'll have to explain that; I can't follow what you
mean (or think you mean). Perhaps you should cast
it in the form of an example.

A speed is simply a distance being traveled during
a time period.
Adding distances during a time period has no physical
reason to change at all and basic addition
would work for any such adding of distances.
add the distances.. the time period remains that same.

That would be true if distances and time periods
were the same for every observer. But they're not.
Empirically they are not.

James, are you hitting the bottle? About this time
every day your writing becomes rather incoherent.



Why you allow miles to change length just because
you move over them faster is simply idiotic

If you want to call the way the universe behaves
"idiotic", then it's idiotic. Just suck it up and
get on with it. Why are you arguing with the
universe?

Not at all. I'm saying that your "basic math" does not
apply to the addition of velocities in the real world.

Then your velocities are screwed up because
adding speeds work perfectally well.

Sure, if you add them using the relativistic formulae.
Otherwise you get answers that disagree with what
actually happens.


No it is not. If your basic math disagrees with real world
results, then your basic math is not applicable to real
world situations.

My Basic math does not disagree with anything physical.

Yes, it does. Empirically proven.

It is your malfunctioning clocks that does that,
and causes the need for your bad velocity addition
math to begin with.

No, the observer making the measurement of the added
velocities is not using a moving clock. So you're
wrong again.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The speed of light revisited
    ... So adding parallel velocities works with basic math? ... Adding speeds works fine for any speed, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The speed of light revisited
    ... So adding parallel velocities works with basic math? ... adding speeds work perfectally well. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The speed of light revisited
    ... So adding parallel velocities works with basic math? ... Adding speeds works fine for any speed, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Consistancy of the speed of light.
    ... |> If using basic math is wrong, ... | formula for the composition of velocities. ... |> the unitless math that is supposedly correcting complete unit math. ... I am adding western miles + western miles both happening ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The problems with a "constant" speed
    ... the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any ... You need to use self limiting math to prove lightspeed is contant to ... make 2 linear distances add in real life. ...
    (sci.physics)