8
   

Speed of light revisited yet still again

 
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 06:37 pm
@dalehileman,
Is it proven that a photon has no mass? Is it even proven what a photon is?

Would a particle that only exist for a microsecond, then disintegrates into solid mass, be lighter than a photon?

Does any of this make sense?

A theory of a theory, is still just a theory.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 07:04 pm
@parados,
Para I'm getting kinda woozy
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 07:24 pm
@dalehileman,
Because you can't answer.................
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 03:58 am
@Brandon9000,
This is why i call Hileman a troll--and Quahog and Thumby, too. They don't know, and won't admit that they don't know, and won't accept reasonable explanations from those who do know. In the end, they just want the attention.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 05:20 am
@Setanta,
And you KNOW, what Einstein did not.

Interestingz, wouldzz you likez to liez backz on mi couchz and tellz me more...?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 05:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
This is why i call Hileman a troll--and Quahog and Thumby, too. They don't know, and won't admit that they don't know, and won't accept reasonable explanations from those who do know. In the end, they just want the attention.

Actually, they are different types. You have just described Hileman perfectly. He doesn't understand, will never admit it, and will never do any real work to learn.

Thumby has an agenda. The closest I could state it is that the world is "classical," including the rule of God. Maybe that's not a completely correct description, but it's something like that. He will ignore any amount of evidence that he's wrong or that you're right, ignore any number of requests that he support his beliefs, misrepresent what you've said, and ask you to prove things that you've clearly proven before. He will not adhere to the standards to which he holds others. I don't mean that he just forgets. He has no intention of adhering to the standards to which he holds others. His behavior would have to be called dishonest. He is one of only two people on the board whom I have ever put on ignore.

Q is something else and something worse. To my way of thinking, he's like a disease that the board caught. Like Thumby, he has an agenda and is dishonest. He appears to want to assert things that no one believes and that don't hold up to scrutiny for an instant. Like Thumby, he's dishonest, but unlike Thumby, there isn't a speck of honesty in him. Like Thumby, he's insulting, but unlike Thumby, he's completely insulting the instant he encounters any opposition. He is the only one of the three whom I would say is here entirely or almost entirely to seek attention by provoking a negative reaction. Of the three of them, he is the only one I would expel and I think that the decision to allow him to continue to post is merely stupid. He's not a real poster in any meaningful sense.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 06:11 am
I pretty well agree with that, but as far as i can see, that just makes the three of them different types of trolls. Basically, they're all here to troll the site.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 07:58 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
I meant that if she were unaware of such that she might incorrectly conclude she was traveling at 2c with respect to those photons coming from Earth

Except that ignores the reality of how photons and the speed of light act.
If you are traveling at a speed .9c compared to earth, you would still see the speed of light as c. It doesn't matter how fast you are going relative to other objects, c remains a constant.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 08:00 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
, she notes that while her watch remains fixed at 11:50, successive readings at each planet she passes increase, until she arrives here where it's 12:00, her own watch of course still apparently stuck at 11;50


You just don't get it. Her watch would read 12:00 as far as she is concerned.

2 objects moving toward each other. Both see the other object as having a slowed down clock. Repeat that about 12 times. Then correct your errors.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:04 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Para I'm getting kinda woozy
So mebbe this'll help

http://able2know.org/topic/263988-1#post-5853692
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:05 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
Because you can't answer.................
Not as wellas I'd like, but

http://able2know.org/topic/263988-1#post-5853692
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:07 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
, and won't admit that they don't know,
I sure don't, at least not for sure

But I do try really hard

http://able2know.org/topic/263988-1#post-5853692
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:13 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I meant that if she were unaware of such that she might incorrectly conclude she was traveling at 2c with respect to those photons coming from Earth

Quote:
Except that ignores the reality of how photons and the speed of light act.
Yes of course Para but remember somebody had asked us to ignore Einstein, whereupon I logically supposed he meant I should describe what might happen if Al were dead wrong

Quote:
If you are traveling at a speed .9c compared to earth, you would still see the speed of light as c.
Did I ever say we wouldn't

And if so it must have been a typo so would you please provide a link

Thanks Para
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
wow , talk about having a profiler on board. You work down at Langley?
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:29 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Quote:
, …. her watch remains fixed at 11:50, successive readings at each planet she passes increase, until she arrives……. stuck at 11;50
Of course there aren't any planets between us and her so I provided one:

http://able2know.org/topic/263988-1#post-5853692

Quote:
You just don't get it. Her watch would read 12:00 as far as she is concerned.
But Para when and where. Eventually of course it would but as she passes earth of course it has to read 11:50 'cuz that's what it read when she launched. After she's passed us of course eventually it will but depending on how close to c she's going it might take (by our reckoning) thousands or trillions of years

Quote:
2 objects moving toward each other. Both see the other object as having a slowed down clock. Repeat that about 12 times. Then correct your errors.
You hafta correct mine first (please see link above in which I acknowledged that we indeed do)
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:51 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Yes of course Para but remember somebody had asked us to ignore Einstein, whereupon I logically supposed he meant I should describe what might happen if Al were dead wrong

No one asked you to ignore Einstein. You were only asked to ignore the minor changes in gravitation that would affect the calculations and instead just rely on the relative velocities in the example. That is hardly ignoring Einstein but is a common thing in doing rough calculations.

Quote:
Did I ever say we wouldn't
You say it every time you claim someone passes through some parcels of photons such as this
Quote:
she has to pass through two 10-minute passels of photons.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 02:14 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Yes of course Para but remember somebody had asked us to ignore Einstein, ...….

Quote:
No one asked you to ignore Einstein.
Yes, no, now Para I get the picture. I simply misunderstood. Forgive me most profusely

Quote:
You were only asked to ignore the minor changes in gravitation that would affect the calculations…….hardly ignoring Einstein
Okay Para but to save me the backtracking could you please repeat exactly what those minor changes are, with many thanks

Quote:
Did I ever say we wouldn't

Quote:
...every time…..such as this
Quote:
...she has to pass through two 10-minute passels of photons
But Para that doesn't mean her velocity would be 2c, as I explain above
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 02:21 pm
@dalehileman,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

Get back to us when you understand the difference between general relativity and special relativity.


Pay particular attention to this:
Quote:
The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 02:53 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Pay particular attention to this:
Quote:
The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers.
Yes Par, of course, for the third time (fifth?), revisiting, once again, I repeat, emphatically, I can't remember having said otherwise (unless inadvertent typo). I have no quarrel at all with Good Old Al
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 03:35 pm
@dalehileman,
No one can go through 20 minutes of photons in 10 minutes as you claimed.
 

Related Topics

WHAT THE BLOODY HELL - Question by Setanta
THIS PLACE SUCKS ! ! ! - Discussion by Setanta
wasteful nasa - Question by hater
Whats the deal with Jgoldman10? - Question by MorganBieber
OBVIOUS TROLL - Question by Setanta
Men Are Bad, Baaaaaaaaaaad. - Question by nononono
Even mathematics isn't certain anymore! - Discussion by Quehoniaomath
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 03:40:42