Relativistic Mass ?

.41533, .5, and .65 are the lengths of the triangle sides at t=.65.

The hypotenuse is .65 light seconds in length.
a^2+b^2=c^2.
c^2=.65^2=.4225
.5^2=.25
.41533^2=.172499
.172499+.25=.4225
 
quantum_wave said:
I'm putting you back on ignore, lol. No need to get personal, but you always seem to. And your interpretation of the box example does not recognize that the light sphere is expanding in space from the point of origin. But I will take another look at the diagram.

What do you say about this, MD?
Click to expand...

Origin is part of the Relativity cult. He knows not of which he speaks. His ship is sinking very fast! He might not realize it yet, because he has no way of determining reality.
 
quantum_wave said:
And your interpretation of the box example does not recognize that the light sphere is expanding in space from the point of origin.
Click to expand...

My interpretation absolutely does assume that the light expands from a fixed point in space independent of the reference frame - that is the crux of MD's problem.

I was not getting personal - accepting reality is a sane thing to do! Ignoring parts of reality because you don't like it is kinda silly...
 
Motor Daddy said:
Origin is part of the Relativity cult. He knows not of which he speaks. His ship is sinking very fast! He might not realize it yet, because he has no way of determining reality.
Click to expand...

Lol, what I mean is, are you saying that the speed of light from your light sphere is ever, under any circumstances, different for any measurements by someone moving across the diagram from a different direction?
 
origin said:
You are mistaken. Look at his diagram. He thinks a light sphere always originates from a stationary point in absolute space - it is completely independent of the reference frame. For somone in the box the light sphere reaches the back wall before it reaches the front wall. It ain't that hard to realize that this means that the relative speed as measured by the observe in the box is that the time it takes the light to transit the same distance to the front of the box is greater than the time it takes to transit to the back of the box. I realize that you are desperately trying to agree with MD, but why not just agree with reality like us sane people do?
Click to expand...

I was just checking the weather forecast and the website had a doppler radar picture of the area. I got to thinking about Motor Daddy's world and what that radar would show there. Or even what the fine would be if you got caught speeding by a radar trap. It is really sad to see the lack of intelligence in our Motor Daddys, Quantum_waves, and lakons (etc).
 
Cheezle said:
I was just checking the weather forecast and the website had a doppler radar picture of the area. I got to thinking about Motor Daddy's world and what that radar would show there.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting world to think about. Imagine a world where you couldn't walk in one direction because the combined speeds of your place on your rotating planet, your planet in its orbit, your sun's motion through space and your galaxy's motion through the universe was close to the "absolute" speed of light.
 
Cheezle said:
I was just checking the weather forecast and the website had a doppler radar picture of the area. I got to thinking about Motor Daddy's world and what that radar would show there. Or even what the fine would be if you got caught speeding by a radar trap. It is really sad to see the lack of intelligence in our Motor Daddys, Quantum_waves, and lakons (etc).
Click to expand...
I see we are back to the good ole days of SciForums where wannabees pop out of the woodwork to support the disparagement of their idols. Neither of you understand science enough to allow for alternative theories, and neither of you are willing to take the hard path of falsifying those theories. I think I understand MD's theory and when I try to lead a discussion that actually shows how it is falsified I get personally attacked by the likes of you two. Just when I though the intelligence of the discussion was improving, it is back to the hacks supporting poor application of the scientific method.
 
Aqueous Id said:
A better way to say that is that it's impossible to exist outside of an inertial reference frame.
Click to expand...

An accelerated or accelerating (or for Motor Daddy decelerating) frame of reference is not an inertial frame of reference.

To Robittybob1's question:

Edit to delete explaination. Previously answered...
 
Cheezle said:
I was just checking the weather forecast and the website had a doppler radar picture of the area. I got to thinking about Motor Daddy's world and what that radar would show there. Or even what the fine would be if you got caught speeding by a radar trap. It is really sad to see the lack of intelligence in our Motor Daddys, Quantum_waves, and lakons (etc).
Click to expand...

Anyone who has a clue has tried to point out that he is just plain wrong - and it seems like recently he has realized it and now is just being obstinate. I just occasionally like to ask him questions to watch him try to squirm his way out of his paradoxical MD universe.;)
 
quantum_wave said:
Lol, what I mean is, are you saying that the speed of light from your light sphere is ever, under any circumstances, different for any measurements by someone moving across the diagram from a different direction?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are asking. The radius of the light sphere is always the speed of light times the elapsed time it has been expanding.
 
origin said:
Anyone who has a clue has tried to point out that he is just plain wrong - and it seems like recently he has realized it and now is just being obstinate. I just occasionally like to ask him questions to watch him try to squirm his way out of his paradoxical MD universe.;)
Click to expand...


What you don't realize is that I am laughing at your ignorance! I am not squirming in the least bit, I am tearing you and Einstein to shreds. When you finally figure this all out and come back and read all my threads, you will see that I have been spot on the entire time. I'm sure you'll get a laugh when you do finally realize just how ignorant you really sounded. Hence, my justification of you being clueless. I am watching you run around in a cage like the dolt that you are! Cheap entertainment for me at your expense.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Not sure what you are asking. The radius of the light sphere is always the speed of light times the elapsed time it has been expanding.
Click to expand...
What I'm asking is this:

The light sphere is emitted from a point in space and the radius expands at the speed of light. As that light sphere reaches an observer moving through space and crosses the light sphere, and measures the speed of the light from the sphere as they encounter it, will they measure it to be anything other than the invariant speed of light. Origin says you say it will be measured at a different velocity. Which is it? In his example it was measured at the speed of light in both measurements from two different inertial frames and he said according to you that it should have been measured at different velocities.
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
What you don't realize is that I am laughing at your ignorance! I am not squirming in the least bit, I am tearing you and Einstein to shreds. When you finally figure this all out and come back and read all my threads, you will see that I have been spot on the entire time. I'm sure you'll get a laugh when you do finally realize just how ignorant you really sounded. Hence, my justification of you being clueless. I am watching you run around in a cage like the dolt that you are! Cheap entertainment for me at your expense.
Click to expand...

The denial is strong with this one.
 
quantum_wave said:
What I'm asking it this:

The light sphere is emitted from a point in space and the radius expands at the speed of light. As that light sphere reaches an observer moving through space and crosses the light sphere, and measures the speed of the light from the sphere as they encounter it, will they measure it to be anything other than the invariant speed of light. Origin says you say it will be measured at a different velocity. Which is it? In his example it was measured at the speed of light in both measurements from two different inertial frames and he said according to you that it should have been measured at different rates.
Click to expand...

There is no motion at t=3. T=3 is in the past and no time has elapsed since then. There is no motion at t=3.
 
origin said:
My interpretation absolutely does assume that the light expands from a fixed point in space independent of the reference frame - that is the crux of MD's problem.

I was not getting personal - accepting reality is a sane thing to do! Ignoring parts of reality because you don't like it is kinda silly...
Click to expand...
Disparagement is disparagement. But whatever. Reality is something else. You are falling into a trap if you think your theory is reality just because it hasn't been falsified. You don't know reality and yet you post as if you do.

Now, back to MD's box and let me ask you a question. Do you define the moving box as an inertial reference frame? Do you realize that that term is theory dependent, meaning that you invoking the generally accepted theory that MD is not, and then saying he doesn't agree with your theory.

You said that the measurements according to his theory would result in different velocities of light and I showed that according to how I interpret his theory, he is not saying that. Then you refer me to the diagram and when I look at it I don't see where he says the speed of light ever changes in his diagram. Point out to me where he says the speed of light is not always invariant.
 
Motor Daddy said:
T=3 is an elapsed time since the light sphere was emitted.
Click to expand...
Oh. Can you imagine someone measuring the speed of light using an appartus like Origin suggested, and seeing that the speed of your light sphere at t=3 is not the same as at t=2 or t=1?
 
quantum_wave said:
Oh. Can you imagine someone measuring the speed of light using an appartus like Origin suggested, and seeing that the speed of your light sphere at t=3 is not the same as at t=2 or t=1?
Click to expand...

They would probably rerun the test until they got the results they were looking for.
 
Can you imagine someone measuring the speed of light using an appartus like Origin suggested, and seeing that the speed of your light sphere at t=3 is not the same as at t=2 or t=1?
Click to expand...

Motor Daddy said:
They would probably rerun the test until they got the results they were looking for.
Click to expand...

So I guess your answer to that question would be "no."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top