I am pleased that you agree with me.
But I bet you did not read my previous post.
Light at Light Speed
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
But I bet you did not read my previous post.
It is not that I agree with you, I agree with reality. You can have an opinion about something; like what is the best political party or which religion makes the most sense. Opinions are not an option for things like, "what is the accleration due to gravity at the surface of the earth?" or "if a space ship leaves earth at 150,000 kps how far from earth will is be after 480 seconds have passed on earth?" These are measured factual events they are not open for opinion.
You lost the bet I did read your previous post - you owe me a nickel.
I understand that you agree with:
You understand correctly.
So the speed between the plane and the short beam of light, according to the Earth, is V =150,000 km/s and not 300,000 km/s.
My goal was to demonstrate this.
Of course! No one ever disputed that. How could it be anything else?
Like I said, I'm glad we agree.
You know Emil, that you are agreeing with a scenario that is in complete support of special relativity, time dilation and length contraction - right?
Good enough - It seems emil thinks this scenario is counter to SR which it of course isn't
As you see, I came to a similar conclusion.
We have seen over the past weeks that Motor Daddy unashamedly clings to his wrong assumptions about reality and doesn't begin to seek to compare his assumptions with reality. Emil, I would argue, hasn't begun to address that physics has to work for someone other than himself, and at no point actually engaged the question of how another person would describe exactly the same physical situation if that person was not at rest with respect to Emil's viewpoint.R. M. Wald said:
As I re-opined out in post #97 of this thread
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2540723#post2540723
Im pleased to see how many are agree with:
Why do you keep saying that? It sounds really strange. It is like saying, "I am so pleased that you agree with me that the acceleration of gravity at the earths surface is 9.81 m/s^2."
It is not that we agree with you, it is simply that you agree with reality, which is rather trivial.:shrug:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Are you trying to say that when a beach ball is on the beach, that the velocity of the ball towards the center of the Earth is actually increasing at the rate of 9.81 m/s^2?
So, do you really believe the ball is getting closer to the center of the Earth as it is on the beach?
If the distance from the center of the earth to the ball remains unchanged, the velocity of the ball towards the center of the earth is 0 m/s. Since acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, are you trying to say that the velocity of the ball towards the center of the Earth increases over time as it remains on the beach?
I find it very odd that you think the velocity of the ball towards the center of the Earth is increasing as it remains on the beach. Can you prove your assertion?
Don't think about this too hard or you could hurt yourself.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I'll take that as a no, you can't prove your assertion that the velocity of the ball is increasing at the rate of 9.81 m/s^2.
As the concepts appears to be beyond your capabilites, you have my permission to make any assumption that you wish.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Good, then the ball has a zero velocity towards the center of the Earth, and the velocity is not increasing or decreasing, so the ball is not accelerating, which means it is not accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2 while on the beach.
For a moment there I thought you were trying to pull a fast one and pretending that the ball's velocity was increasing at the rate of 9.81 m/s^2 while it remained on the beach.
This Newtonian physics is some wild, wild stuff, just mind boggling, huh?:bugeye:
Well, it is a great pleasure as you agree that the speed of light between an object (that has the speed 150.000km / s) and the light is 150.000km / s.