8
   

Speed of light revisited yet still again

 
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 07:15 pm
@dalehileman,
You live in fantasy...............just because you believe it to be real, does not change the fantasy.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 07:20 pm
@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
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 07:22 pm
@dalehileman,
Antimatter is not proven to exist, so adding it to an equation as though it is real, is dumb.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 07:22 pm
@somewhatsolved,
Quote:
….provide link or explain the formula and the reasons behind it.
Whaaa….Who, me, and why
somewhatsolved
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 01:30 am
@dalehileman,
Its all right I think I found one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%5E2
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 07:09 am
@somewhatsolved,
Finding information at a wiki, is like finding candy in the garbage dump. Do you really want to eat it?
somewhatsolved
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 07:22 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Is it still in the wrapper?

Why bring this to me first? Others have used that source on this thread first.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 07:46 am
@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
somewhatsolved
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 08:07 am
@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
somewhatsolved
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 08:08 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
What sites do you use

consperisy.com
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 08:16 am
@somewhatsolved,
Angry at the reality of wikis nonsense, are we?
0 Replies
 
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 08:19 am
@somewhatsolved,
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376 http://www.britannica.com/search?query=relativity

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

Next
somewhatsolved
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 08:25 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Thanks.
But do you listen to these sites or just yell at them.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 09:10 am
@somewhatsolved,
What sites?
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 12:21 pm
@somewhatsolved,
Quote:
I found one
Yes thanks, Some, but so what
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 12:11 pm
@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.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 12:16 pm
@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
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 01:30 pm
@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.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 03:39 pm
@Brandon9000,
Agreed. I wasn't implying any justification to his style of debate.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 04:22 pm
@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" .
 

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
Does this chair make my butt look fat? - Question by Professor Gumbus
Men Are Bad, Baaaaaaaaaaad. - Question by nononono
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2021 at 01:52:10