Speed of light revisited yet still again

@dalehileman,

You live in fantasy...............just because you believe it to be real, does not change the fantasy.

@somewhatsolved,

E=MC^2 isn't correct past positive matter. Add in antimatter which is electrons that have a positive charge and protons with a negitive charge. And it falls to shredds. So then it was determined that E=+/-MC^2 with these discoveries (you will find backed up proof by looking at the articles on the [please insert proper scientists name] Sea, also known as the Electron Sea). However, my physics teacher when I told him this and wrote it down to show him just shook his head and then wrote out a much more complex notation and said that what he wrote was the proper notation and walked off with the paper.

I can more or less remember it but not quite. For all I know it is fake or I am remembering right.

(E=+/-MC^2)/1-(C-1/C^2) This is what I think my teacher had written down that day.

So is this right.

provide link or explain the formula and the reasons behind it

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Antimatter is not proven to exist, so adding it to an equation as though it is real, is dumb.

1 Reply

@somewhatsolved,

Quote:

….provide link or explain the formula and the reasons behind it.

Whaaa….Who, me, and why

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Its all right I think I found one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%5E2

2 Replies

@somewhatsolved,

Finding information at a wiki, is like finding candy in the garbage dump. Do you really want to eat it?

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Is it still in the wrapper?

Why bring this to me first? Others have used that source on this thread first.

1 Reply

@somewhatsolved,

Wiki is used everywhere, this I know. Let me explain why you should not use wiki. Ok, the topic is bigfoot, not relativity. Anyone can post their information as to why bigfoot is real, and produce thousands of pages of proof, of something that is not real. Seriously, these people could post to wiki about his bigfoot experiences--------->

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2dbFjxQa9E8/maxresdefault.jpg

http://stagevu.com/img/thumbnail/lvdfdvtczcexbig.jpg

2 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Yes and you can post there to. That is until they (the actual site managers) block your access and kick you off the site/also fixing your changes.

Heres a link to a developing page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go&action=edit&section=4&editintro=Template:Disambig_editintro

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

What sites do you use

consperisy.com

1 Reply

@somewhatsolved,

Angry at the reality of wikis nonsense, are we?

0 Replies

@somewhatsolved,

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376 http://www.britannica.com/search?query=relativity

There ya go.................

Next

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Thanks.
But do you listen to these sites or just yell at them.

1 Reply

@somewhatsolved,

What sites?

0 Replies

@somewhatsolved,

Quote:

I found one

Yes thanks, Some, but so what

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Q is something else and something worse.

After observing Q for some time now I would classify him in a group that I call "Information Anarchists". We have several users on A2K like this all in slightly different flavors. Q rejects scientific methodology itself which is why he claims that everything we know from science is meaningless. But he also rejects theological claims with equal vehemence. At its core, similar to Gungasnake, he rejects anything which is regarded as "authoritative" (which is a knee-jerk rejection of all authorities).

Q, Thumby, Herald and Dale are all completely different to me. Even Gungasnake is unique although he has a similar pathology to Q when it comes to rejecting authority.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Q, Thumby, Herald and Dale are all completely different to me

Golly Ros again, made my day

….unless of course you mean different in another equally bollixed way

Still once in a while Q does set me to thinking, for which at 84 I'm grateful

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Q is something else and something worse.

After observing Q for some time now I would classify him in a group that I call "Information Anarchists". We have several users on A2K like this all in slightly different flavors. Q rejects scientific methodology itself which is why he claims that everything we know from science is meaningless. But he also rejects theological claims with equal vehemence. At its core, similar to Gungasnake, he rejects anything which is regarded as "authoritative" (which is a knee-jerk rejection of all authorities).

Q, Thumby, Herald and Dale are all completely different to me. Even Gungasnake is unique although he has a similar pathology to Q when it comes to rejecting authority.

It would be theoretically possible for one of your "information anarchists" to argue with dignity and try to prove his points, but Q rejects your evidence a priori without actual argument, and often refuses to provide any of his own. He attempts to function by insult. He is also a liar. He claimed to have studied physics at the university, but refused to solve a very elementary problem when I posted it. You cannot argue with someone who refuses to participate in argument or to abide by any rules of fairness or logic. Furthermore, he regularly makes claims that no one would ever entertain as possible, which suggests that he simply wants attention.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Agreed. I wasn't implying any justification to his style of debate.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

But he also rejects theological claims with equal vehemence.

Not really. He is constantly making his vapid points by only quoting and posting Creationist literature and touting opinions from Creationist spokespeople . He claims hes not a CReationist but hangs with their baseless arguments, evidence-free conclusions, and Biblio-centric timelines.

Hes a fraud, but not one without religion.

The fact that he runs from any argument by immediately insulting or just posting some garbage Creationist tract gives him an edge by being personally nonexistent.

Hes claimed to have me on ignore from almost my third response to him, yet he answers my posts as if we were getting each others attention. His insults to me are basically childish accusations so I don't see anything worth shooting at.

Overall, This new batch of denialists are a mixed lot certainly and they are "curiouser and curiouser" .

2 Replies

Speed of light revisited yet still again

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know