Re: if at the speed of light matter is infinant...

On Jul 30, 3:58 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
hhc...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:52 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Matthew Johnson wrote:
In article <W6ednRlzFKZJOg3VnZ2dnUVZ_jKdn...@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Spaceman
says...

PD wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:10 pm, "Spaceman"
<space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
jedakiah wrote:
OK according to Einstein at the speed of light matter becomes
infinitely big as does its gravity... so if matter travels at
half the speed of

No -- matter CANNOT have relative velocity of c!

Wrong,
Two objects leaving one point in different directions,
Each object ends up having a velocity of 0.6c WRT the starting
point
0.6c+0.6c = 1.2 c
The relative seperation speed of the objects is 1.2c.

You know, you could save yourself a lot of time just by saying
"Ththppppptt!" in a post, rather than straining your wee head to
produce something that sounds coherent. Your wee head isn't up to
it, and you really only want to say "Ththpppppttt!" anyway.

Poor PD,
He is thinking he has math that proves 0.6c+0.6c does not equal
1.2c

Poor Spaceman! He thinks he has a point, when all he can do is
misquote and misquote pathetically.

Of course PD said no such thing. PD knows that in SR, velocity must
transform according to the Lorentz transformation, so velocities do
not add as vectors anymore.

Poor Matthew does nto understand that using the stupid ass transform
is actually trying to prove the basic math is wrong and yet
the transform is using basic math itself so it would also be wrong
if it indeed proves the basic math is wrong.
Poor Matthew does not understand the transform is simply a
nice observational "speed limit" trick.
LOL

Yeah...well.... Poor SPACEMAN does nto understand that using the
stupid ass WORDS is trying to use WORDS to prove basic words is wrong
and yet is using words to prove words is wrong and so is wrong itself
if it rpoves words is wrong.
Yeah.
So there.
LOL.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right, and I believe that you, PD, know better, but still you should
know better than to slam the guy, for asking questions that we all did
as freshman in college.

PD, if you are actually educated in physics, why don't you post
educated corrections to SPACEMANS misconceptions, Why don't you
attempt to describe the mistakes in SPACEMAN' choice of words, and why
they are incorrect for the situation.

You presumably post like you are college educated in physics and
mathematics, but I for one am increasingly doubting that. Something
here is missing.

PD, are you an undergraduate student, since some of your posts suggest
that you have more knowledge than a layman, but yet have not receive
the charge given to a graduate physicists, which is to teach.

Tell me more about yourself and your situation.

The fact that you prefer to ridicule posters more often than to
attempt to teach, tells me that you are not a graduate physict from
any ranking university, and hence anything that you post as scientific
fact should be greeted with significant credibility.

Sadly Harry,
As far as I can tell, his name is Paul Draper and he actually teaches.
He also seemsto teach the "ignorant of classical physics" point
of view of relativity and that is why he hates me when I choose
basic math and classical physics and also explain such instead
of just insulting like most of the "relativists" do here.

Sorry James, I'm a physicst and I've never heard of the guy.
Precisely where does he teach?

He also tends to make claims that are not verifiable and
then just yells to find the info yourself.

Most crackpots doe this.

It is pretty sad for a teacher that also thinks 0.6c +0.6c does
not equal 1.2c

By this do you mean relative velocity , or absolute velocity. I just
explained the difference to you, and if you cannot grasp it, that's
your problem.

He would say that math is wrong and would say he has the math
that proves such, yet he uses basic math to do such so therefore
his "proof" is just as wrong as what he is proving wrong with such.
That is a big reason he hates me.

I doubt that James. I would sugget that the guy is simply another
crackpot posting here who has himself no grasp of or education in
physics.

Simply because When he proves my basic math wrong using
basic math, I then say his proof is also wrong.
Sadly, he can not understand that fact.
:)

Ok James, I never try to prove you basic math wrong, but simply
enoucourage you you to think about what it means. Math is simply
arithmetic, unless you first understand that the variables you are
dealing with actually represent. That's something that is not alway
obvious, like the difference between closing velocity and absolute
velocity.

James, while you may not grasp this simple concept, many readers here
do, including the few physicists among the Newsgroup readers.

Harry C.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: if at the speed of light matter is infinant...
    ... must transform according to the Lorentz transformation, ... the transform is using basic math itself so it would also be wrong ... He also seemsto teach the "ignorant of classical physics" ... By this do you mean relative velocity, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... >Modern physics, at least that part which is based upon Dr. Einstein's work, is ... >compared the time recorded by that clock with the time recorded by an identical ... He did not accept the possibility that the velocity of the trip ... but neither theory is a theory of gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Has the speed of light emitted by a fast moving particle been measured ?
    ... | Does that stop you from measuring, for example, your average speed ... Light with the Principle of Relativity. ... THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according ... that the velocity of light in our theory plays the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "The Error in Relativistic Physics"
    ... The Science of Physics is based upon the making of measurements. ... shortening in the direction of the relative velocity and Larmor added the ... the Special theory of Relativity, ... Aether does exist but, because of the form of the Lorentz Transformations, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?
    ... Modern physics, at least that part which is based upon Dr. ... >physicist transported an atomic clock around the world on jet airliner and ... He did not accept the possibility that the velocity ... >with a medium, called the Aether. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)